View Full Version : American Politics during the Bush Presidency
The "Don't Tax & Spend" policy is the reason our money is no good anymore and we American's are nearly broke and won't admit it to our selves.
Exon
Jax I prefer Exon's posts to be unedited, they are somewhat reminiscent of E. E. Cummings* work that way.
*note to Dickhead, E. E. Cummings singed his work with neither caps nor spaces, hence referring to him in this way is not poor grammar but rather a literary homage. Further note, all commas adentro.I knew that about cummings. Unreadable to me. Commas and periods go inside quotation marks while colons and semi-colons go outside.
While we are discussing tax and spend, or don't tax and spend, how about the current policy: don't tax and waste?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080630/pl_politico/11435
Seems John McCain is considering "Mitt" Romney as his VP choice.
If he picks Romney he has no chance of winning.
Exon
Member #4112
06-30-08, 20:21
Hey Exon,
Who do you think he should pick? Not a lot to choose from. Sure as hell don't want the new governor from Louisiana! Hey how about Condi to counter Hill!
Damn sure moving down there if Obama wins.
I am pretty sure both Exon and I want McCain to pick whomever is most likely to make him lose the election. Me, I'd like to see him pick Redondo.
What is your source for these number, Fox News?
Punter 127
08-05-08, 18:57
What is your source for these number, Fox News?I don ’t know where he got his numbers, but I think he got them from MSNBC.
If his numbers are wrong why don't you dispute them?
I don 't know where he got his numbers, but I think he got them from MSNBC.
If his numbers are wrong why don 't you dispute them?If he would site a source, I might not have to dispute them. As stated, they just seem like speculation at best.
Punter 127
08-05-08, 19:31
If he would site a source, I might not have to dispute them. As stated, they just seem like speculation at best. Oh I see, you ’re saying if it came from Fox News the numbers are correct, now I understand.:rolleyes:
The numbers or either right or wrong, regardless of his source.
Rock Harders
08-05-08, 21:38
Come on Sidney-
Please stop posting all this ridiculous anti-Obama propaganda. Your first post sounds like something right off the wires from either Fox News or Rush Limbaugh's radio show. Just exactly who does Dick Morris work for these days, none other than FOX NEWS, which I can watch right here in Buenos Aires on Directv. The fact of the matter on taxes is that it is just not fiscally possible to continue on as is without raising taxes on those who can afford to pay more. How can we possibly finance two neverending wars without additional revenue? Those same Republican military-industrialists who are profiting so enormously from the war simply must pay more of the income they receive from the war to finance its continuation. Let those who profit from the war, pay and suffer for the war. The fact that the US has no univeral healthcare system, yet spends trillions of dollars per year financing the military machines (and lining the pockets of those supplying these military machines) of our own country along with dozens of others is a disgrace of the highest order.
As for the oil companies and off-shore drilling, or drilling in the North Slope of Alaska, its all a hoax. Oil prices are high because the OPEC, in collusion with the oil companies and their political allies, keep supply tight in order to keep prices as high as possible. The current administration does nothing because their are financially connected to the oil companies and they and / or their associates are making a ton of money right now. The answer is that the next administration should enact a special corporate windfall tax on oil companies that operate in the United States and pour the additional revenue into research and development of renewable, non-polluting energy sources. Oil is not the future and the current situation functions as a monopoly that behaves against the public interest and therefore it is the job of the government to regulate the current situation and to do the R / D to find the future energy source.
Suerte,
Rock Harders
Your first post sounds like something right off the wires from either Fox News or Rush Limbaugh's radio show. Just exactly who does Dick Morris work for these days, none other than FOX NEWS, which I can watch right here in Buenos Aires on Directv.What's wrong with FOX News?
What is your source for these number, Fox News?What's wrong with FOX News?
I would hate too pay taxes on something just because it had been in my family for a long time even though everybody else has to pay taxes on their profit in the form of wages!
The answer is that the next administration should enact a special corporate windfall tax on oil companies that operate in the United States and pour the additional revenue into research and development of renewable, non-polluting energy sources. Oil is not the future and the current situation functions as a monopoly that behaves against the public interest and therefore it is the job of the government to regulate the current situation and to do the R / D to find the future energy source.
Suerte,
Rock HardersExcept that the corporate income tax is a complete fiction. Corporations cannot pay taxes; only individuals can. The corporate income tax just gets passed on to either the customers of the corporation or the shareholders in the form of reduced profit. The degree to which it falls on the customers vs. the shareholders depends on the elasticity of demand for the product (the "excess burden" of a tax) and in this case demand is inelastic and it will fall disproportionately on the customers.
Additionally, the government is poorly equipped to do research. A better solution would be a free-market solution, which many argue will emerge in the long run if gas prices stay high. In the long run I am dead so I'd argue for additional available funding for applied research into alternative energy technologies, funded through general revenues rather than a windfall profit tax.
Oh I see, you 're saying if it came from Fox News the numbers are correct, now I understand.:rolleyes:
The numbers or either right or wrong, regardless of his source.The source generally determines the likelyhood of the accuracy of the data, wouldn't you agree?
Any data of the form <Barak all bad>, <McCain all good> reeks of Fox News to me.
What's wrong with FOX News?Jackson, you are scaring me. I don't see any smiley faces in your post.
:-)
That was my intention!Almost as much fun as watching the Peronists and the Anti-Peronists.
The source generally determines the likelyhood of the accuracy of the data, wouldn't you agree?No, I think the methodology used in the data collection is more determinant of the accuracy. Garbage in, garbage out.
That was my intention in the hopes of finding some good answers about these two terrible candidates!Who would be your preferred candidate?
The numbers are just the tax code from before the Bush tax cuts (which expire in 2010) so they are nothing new. That would be the the tax code that had balanced the budget as opposed to the one that has a projected 2009 deficit of 482 billion dollars.
The home example is a bit misleading since there was the rollover provision where you could defer any gain as long as you traded up.
The inheritance tax is also misleading since there are about a zillion ways to dramatically reduce inheritance taxes. Only suckers pay retail or inheritance taxes.
I've never heard anything about an additional tax on houses over 2400 sf or any of the other "proposals" listed. Personally, I've always been for phase-in increased gas taxes (e. G. 5% increase per year for 20 years) as a way to discourage consumption over time.
For me, the problem with the Bush tax cuts is that the American people are unwilling to live with the level of government services the new revenue base can fund. That's a large part of the huge deficits we are experiencing. The most obvious result is the increasing chunk of tax revenues that goes to paying interest on debt rather than services.
The Bush tax cuts have been good for me personally but I don't think they have been good for the country.
Sorry, you did. I forgot. I'd be okay with him too but it won't happen. Doubt his ego would allow for him to be VP.
Member #4112
08-07-08, 15:32
The Bush tax cuts actually resulted in more tax revenue being collected due to the cuts stimulating the economy. This worked fine until the Republicans began spending like Democrats on one program after another, then there was all t he pork. Don't bring up the war, just look at the budget, "entitlement" programs are what are killing us not military spending. This is the classic Guns N Butter debate; we just got way too much Butter.
Does anyone remember in the mid to late 90's the Democrat's triad about "economic discrimination"? How we were denying low income earners (read minorities) the opportunity of home ownership and the congressional legislation to force the major lenders to reduce their threshold for new home buyers. After years of handing out home loans like they were candy to unqualified buyers the house of cards collapsed. Add to that oil prices and now we have a serious economic down turn.
Anybody remember the "WIN" tax from the early 1970's, the Democrats had the brilliant idea they could tax us out of a recession? Democrats always believe the answer to any problem is to tax more so they can spend more since they know better how to spend our money. Me personally I would rather spend that money on ladies of the evening, soiled doves, ect (you get the idea)
I just don't think we need more taxes, we need more restraint in spending, no we need a lot more restraint in spending.
So ends my stroll down memory lane and my triad about taxes, spending and politics
But I'm so emotionally inspired by his speaches!
Isn't that the primary qualification for the Presidency?
But I'm so emotionally inspired by his speaches!
Isn't that the primary qualification for the Presidency?Worked wonders for Ronnie!:)
The Bush tax cuts actually resulted in more tax revenue being collected due to the cuts stimulating the economy.This article contradicts that statement:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121798022246515105.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
The gist of which is "The rebates added nearly $80 billion to the permanent national debt but less than $20 billion to consumer spending. This experience confirms earlier studies showing that one-time tax rebates are not a cost-effective way to increase economic activity."
Worked wonders for Ronnie!:)Ahh, but at least Ronald Reagan had some executive governing experience, for example, 8 years as governor of the country's largest state, president of a labor union, employment in private enterprise, etc. before he sought out the Presidency.
My point being is that being a great orator appears to be the Messiah's ONLY qualification for the job. Unfortunately, for some people, that's apparently enough.
Ahh, but at least Ronald Reagan had some executive governing experience, for example, 8 years as governor of the country's largest state, president of a labor union, employment in private enterprise, etc. Before he sought out the Presidency.Admit it Jackson, Obama is the thin, black, anti war, anti big oil, pro environment, democratic, reincarnation of Ronald Reagan.
Daddy Rulz
08-07-08, 23:26
Ahh, but at least Ronald Reagan had some executive governing experience, for example, 8 years as governor of the country's largest state, president of a labor union, employment in private enterprise, etc. Before he sought out the Presidency.
My point being is that being a great orator appears to be the Messiah's ONLY qualification for the job. Unfortunately, for some people, that's apparently enough.Ronnie was Governor of Texas?
Sid thanks for the list, you just took me off the apathetic roster and got me back to the polls. I love this guys platform.
Gato Hunter
08-07-08, 23:43
The largest state is actually Alaska. Texas hates to admit it.
I believe our fearless leader meant to say "our most populous state." California is, of course, the third-largest state. But they sure do elect some "eclectic" choices when it comes to governors. My personal favorite is Culbert Olson. He appointed my dad state Fish and Game Commissioner. My dad did know a fish from a game (such as poker or bridge) but that was pretty much the extent of it. I also like Jose Antonio Remualdo Pacheco, Jr. Now there was a governor!
I just don't know whether to vote for the Black Muslim or the god damn foreigner at this point.
Admit it Jackson, Obama is the thin, black, anti war, anti big oil, pro environment, democratic, reincarnation of Ronald Reagan.OMG, you're right!
Now I'm going to need to buy some Ambien.
The largest state is actually Alaska. Texas hates to admit it.Okay, okay. I'm clarifying my statement.
Ronald Reagan was the governor of the most populous state in the country for 8 years.
Is this a flip-flop?
Dodger Bulldog
08-08-08, 04:42
So ends my stroll down memory lane and my triad about taxes, spending and politicsTip to Doppleganger:
Time to see your doctor. Ask for a prescription for Aricept.
Apparently, Alzhiemer's has fully kicked in and it's not a pretty thing.
Your memory has completely abandoned you, and you have been reduced to simply making things up. For example:
Anybody remember the "WIN" tax from the early 1970's, the Democrats had the brilliant idea they could tax us out of a recession?Yes, I remember the "WIN" program from 1975-76, but you clearly you don't. "WIN" stood for "Whip Inflation Now," and was Gerald Ford's voluntary program to wear a "WIN" button to reduce inflation. As quoted from President Ford's obituary:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4529638
In October, Ford addressed a joint session of Congress about the economy. Although he spoke of many kinds of governmental action, the part of the speech that stuck in people's minds was his call for ordinary Americans to "Whip Inflation Now," by doing such things as wearing a WIN button. Although the buttons were initially popular, the idea was finally regarded as a public relations stunt.
DB
OMG, you're right!
Now I'm going to need to buy some Ambien.Yeah, well, Obama as Ronnie was a joke when I typed it, but upon further observation, maybe not so!
Member #4112
08-08-08, 12:18
First I was speaking of Tax Cuts not rebates, check the numbers over years they were phase in tax revenue went up. Rebates are just giveme's for votes and basicly worthless IMHO.
Second the WIN was a tax, take a look at your check stub from that period, yes they did have a WIN button but you are missing the tax. Being an old fart I paid the tax. Stag-Flation which is what we had at the time was not a pretty site. Thank God Regean came along before Carter gave the entire country away.
Dodger Bulldog
08-08-08, 13:01
Thank God Regean [sic] came along before Carter gave the entire country away.{Emphasis Added}Doppleganger, You really need to ask a doctor for help with your memory. Seriously.
Reagan came along AFTER Carter.
You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own set of facts.
DB
Punter 127
08-08-08, 15:08
Doppleganger, You really need to ask a doctor for help with your memory. Seriously.
Reagan came along AFTER Carter.
You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own set of facts.
DBOne of us misread what he was saying, I read it that Reagan came along and stopped Carter who was giving the country away, not that Reagan came first.
But hey, I'm just a guy from flyover country clinging to guns and religion and xenophobia out of bitterness.
Dodger Bulldog
08-08-08, 16:14
Punter,
Upon reading it again, I'll grant you that it can also be read the way you did.
But considering that every other sentence he's written contains errors, I'm not so sure.:)
Faulty memories are stubborn things, but facts are even more stubborn.
So here is a summary from the Tax Policy Center of all the tax revisions enacted in the 1970's. Not a single thing about any "WIN" tax.
Nor do I see any tax increases at all. Only decreased rates, increased deductions and increased exemptions. (Oh, and the holding period for the long term capital gains tax break went from 6 to 12 months. So sorry!
Blame the Democrats, or credit the Democrats?
DB.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/legislation/1970.cfm
Major Enacted Tax Legislation, 1970-1979
Revenue Act of 1978
Tax Reduction and Simplification Act of 1977
Tax Reform Act of 1976
Tax Reduction Act of 1975
Revenue Act of 1971
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revenue Act of 1978
Individual Income Tax. Reduced individual taxes (widened tax brackets and reduced number of tax rates)
Personal Exemption. Increased personal exemption amount from $750 to $1,000.
Corporate Tax. Reduced corporate tax rates (top rate dropped from 48% to 46%)
Standard Deduction. Increased standard deduction from $3,200 to $3,400 for joint filers.
Capital Gains. Increased capital gains exclusion from 50% to 60%.
State and Local Taxes. Repealed nonbusiness deduction for state and local gasoline taxes.
Tax Reduction and Simplification Act of 1977
Standard Deduction. Replaced percentage standard deduction and minimum standard deduction with single standard deduction of $3,200 (for joint filers)
General Tax Credit. Temporarily extended general tax credit through 1978 (maximum of $35 per capita or 2% of $9,000 of income)
Tax Reform Act of 1976
Standard Deduction. Increased percentage standard deduction to 16% (maximum $2,800) and minimum standard deduction to $2,100 (for joints filers)
General Tax Credit. Temporarily extended general tax credit through 1977 (maximum of $35 per capita or 2% of $9,000 of income)
Investment Tax Credit. Delayed decrease in investment tax credit from 10% to 7% through 1980.
Individual Mimimum Tax. Expanded individual minimum tax.
Estate and Gift Tax. Created unified rate schedule for estate and gift taxes with $175,000 exemption.
Small Business Tax Rates. Temporarily lowered small business tax rates through 1977.
Capital Gains. Increased long-term capital gains holding period from 6 months to 1 year.
Tax Reduction Act of 1975
Tax Liability. Provided 10% rebate on 1974 tax liability ($200 cap)
General Tax Credit. Created temporary $30 general tax credit for each taxpayer and dependent.
Investment Tax Credit. Temporarily increased investment tax credit to 10% through 1976.
Minimum Standard Deduction. Temporarily increased minimum standard deduction to $1,900 (for joint filers) for 1975 only.
Percentage Standard Deduction. Temporarily increased percentage standard deduction to 16% for 1975 only.
Revenue Act of 1971
Investment Tax Credit. Reinstated investment tax credit (no basis adjustment)
Excise Tax. Repealed 7% auto excise tax, which was due to phase-out in 1982.
Depreciation Convention. Replaced 3/4-year depreciation convention with 2-year convention.
Minimum Standard Deduction. Increased minimum standard deduction from $1,000 to $1,300.
Personal Exemption. Accelerated scheduled increases in personal exemption amount and percentage standard deduction.
Punter 127
08-08-08, 16:33
I almost put in my post that I don't remember the "WIN", I do recall the Windfall Profit Tax (WPT) on the oil companies, but not "WIN" I truly don't know, and don't care enough to look for it. oh and I don't have a check stub from 1979 handy.
BTW I did vote for Carter before I voted against him. :cool: (It's true, I'm a flip flopper :eek: )
Getting shot down and taken prisoner does not help to make you more qualified for the presidency. Never knew that he had already crashed three planes. That would never fly in the USN of today with the multi-million price tag of the modern jet fighters. If you cannot land one of these jets on the deck of an aircraft carrier you are just not kept around. I found this information to be quite interesting.
Bennie.
Thanks for this great post! Finally someone has stripped mccain naked and its not a pretty picture. The comments about him re-living a victory in vietnam with our current crop of youth is so ¨spot - on¨ it screams for publication.
He, in my belief, has a psycho imbalance, as evidenced by his temper tantrums and inappropriate behavior. For all we know, he is on mood enhancers while on the campaign trail.
With all the negative press Obama has gotten, This should shut up the.
Fear and loathing salesmen of the republican party. Or will it?
My $.02 worth.
Jackpot
Punter 127
08-09-08, 15:47
First of all can ’t you guys see that Sid is baiting? He keeps posting from both side of the fence; I call this “stirring the shit ” (oh I hope they didn ’t say that on Fox) this is by his own admission;
The ''right'' and the ''left'' are duking it out!
That was my intention in the hopes of finding some good answers about these two terrible candidates! At some point Jackson may view this action as being antagonistic.
I do agree that both these candidates are terrible, and I don ’t see either as being of presidential caliber. And I will repeat myself here:
I had considered not voting this year because the choices are so poor, but now that I am reminded of just how narrow minded some people are in their thinking I know I must. Now Obama has consistently praised McCain's service, and called him "a genuine American hero." But I think this would be a great place for an Obama flip flop and he should echo Rex Nuttings views of McCain ’s hero status.
That might make some old “Yellow Dog Democrats ” and young “Elitist Democrats ” exchange some high fives, but I don ’t think it ’s going be very well received by the American voters, and I think the new “Blue Dog Demarcates ” would run like hell for cover.
===============================================
Dickhead I remember the term “Yellow Dog ”, you might be surprised to know that I was actually called one on many occasions when I was young. But that was before the Demarcate party sold its soul to the extreme leftwing fanatics.
I had forgotten the term until they started talking about the Blue Dog Demarcates in the last election, and you reminded me of it again on the ISG a few days ago.
These candidates require as much info as we can discover about them.Especially considering that we know virtually nothing about one of the candidates.
Dodger Bulldog
08-10-08, 03:44
Especially considering that we know virtually nothing about one of the candidates.And we already know more than enough about the other one than to believe that he would ever change us from riding this "wrong track" that the American people are begging to get off.
I'll take the devil I don't know over the devil I do.
Dodger Bulldog
08-10-08, 04:19
At some point Jackson may view this action as being antagonistic. Punter, more than once you've "threatened" to call Jackson in when you disagree with someone.
Why so defensive? Sidney did not attack anyone, he simply posted two different points of view. How is that antagonistic?
I keep waiting for the day that you to find any conservative post to be "antagonistic."
As if your own comments aren't just as antagonistic? Maybe even more so?
In case anyone has doubts I've quoted a few of your choice words at the end of this post. Try explaining how they are not derogatory.
I recall that you have actually advocated having "tolerance" here. Was that only intended to quell the people you disagree with, or is it a good idea for one to also practice what he preaches?
How interesting that you had no objections when Sidney was slamming Obama. It appears you were cool with that.
But when Sidney put up one lousy article questioning McCain, suddenly it is time to scream that he's being "antagonistic."
???
I found it refreshing that he actually listened to both sides, regardless of which one he agrees with. Perhaps that is far too radical for some others to ever do, let alone to consider it healthy.
By their very nature, these political threads are going to rub some people the wrong way at times. It is best for us to be accept them for what they are, or stop reading them if we can't handle a little controversy.
No need to constantly get ones panties all up in a wad. Live and let live.
Jackson reads these threads. I doubt if he needs anyone else's help policing them.
DB.
I 'm sorry but this kind of thinking is just preposterous, what leftwing blog did that come from? The rest of your post I can deal with but this is just way out in left field. Next I expect you to tell us how Bush blew up the world trade center, and what a smart guy Charlie Sheen is, and that terrorism is a figment of our imagination.
It appears you have a problem with freedom of thought and expression, you apparently don't have any respect or even tolerance for those who have different views than you.
Now we can do one of three things, you can stop the flaming, (preferred) or we can get Jackson involved, or we can declare war and let the personnel attacks fly... Hey I'm up for whatever!
Punter 127
08-10-08, 10:59
Dodger Bulldog,
I did not threaten to call Jackson about Sid in my post, I made a suggestion as to how Jackson might view his actions, and you might want read his other post again.
Also in the quotes you posted I see Jackson’s name one time not several times, and even then it was being given to you as an option, not a threat. (Sorry you took it that way) This is not the first time you have misread or misinterpreted a post perhaps you should start reading all post more than once before you give knee jerk reactions.
Imho when someone post on both sides of an issue and doesn’t take a stand, and then admits he just wanted to see the right and the left “duking it out” that's not freedom of thought and expression because it’s not his opinion and he doesn't support it; it’s just plain old “shit stirring”, even if you happen to find the smell of this particular shit “refreshing ”
I didn ’t see you stand up for Sid when he posted “Dick Morris on Obama ” several guys jumped his ass, did I miss something? Why didn ’t you defend him when they attacked him and Fox News? Could it be because the guys attacking him are on your side of the fence? Surely that wouldn ’t be the case because you find it “refreshing that he actually listened to both sides ”…. Right. Does that include Fox News?
Jackson reads these threads. I doubt if he needs anyone else's help policing them. I wonder why he has that little link on the lower left side of all post that says “Report Post to Moderator ”, did you misread that too?
Getting shot down and taken prisoner does not help to make you more qualified for the presidency.You are correct, but McCain's conduct AFTER he was shot down demonstrates to me that he is both mentally tough and emotionally disciplined, and these are the traits I want in a Commander in Chief.
Bad Economy May Hurt Obama.
Thursday, August 7, 2008 10:07 AM.
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann Article.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.This new threat of Russia invading Georgia also bodes well for McCain's chances, as national security will re enter the american minds.
Punter 127
08-10-08, 13:27
You are correct, but McCain's conduct AFTER he was shot down demonstrates to me that he is both mentally tough and emotionally disciplined, and these are the traits I want in a Commander in Chief.I would agree and remind you that another American Hero and former President had a PT boat shot out from under him;
It is arguably the most famous small-craft engagement in naval history, and it was an unmitigated disaster. At a later date, when asked to explain how he had come to be a hero, one of the young commanders involved, by then an aspiring politician, replied laconically, "It was involuntary. They sank my boat."It was his actions after PT109 was sunk that really made Kennedy a Hero.
Just shows you how much the world has changed, or perhaps how desperate some have become, but I don't think anybody ever questioned JFK ’s Hero status.
Just shows you how much the world has changed, or perhaps how desperate some have become, but I don 't think anybody ever questioned JFK 's Hero status.His hero status would have been questioned if he had run for president in 2000.:) Course he would have been pretty old by then.
Dodger Bulldog
08-10-08, 15:19
I didn 't see you stand up for Sid when he posted "Dick Morris on Obama " several guys jumped his ass, did I miss something? Why didn 't you defend him when they attacked him and Fox News? Could it be because the guys attacking him are on your side of the fence?You could not have possibly missed the point more.
I could care less when people disagree with each other. The whole purpose of a thread on politics is to air out different views.
What I object to is someone appointing himself as the political morality police and working to have the posts of others censored from the thread.
Can't you understand that point? I don't know how to make it more clear.
"Several guys" did not jump Sidney's ass. ONE guy asked him to quit posting "ridiculous anti-Obama propaganda." No one tried to threaten him off the boards, like you did. So there you go again!
I can deal with differences of opinion. But what really irks is that it seems to be endemic among so many sanctimonious conservatives that they actually believe that they are morally superior, and are therefore are justified in telling others what one is allowed to do or say.
Thankfully, not all conservatives act that way!
The great William F. Buckley comes to mind. So does Barry Goldwater. Both showed respect for those who disagreed with them and represented the conservative viewpoint with class.
You keep bringing up Jackson (three times now) I haven't seen him take up your cause to censor anyone's views. He's certainly a conservative, but he seems to be able to handle the back-and-forth of different opinions just fine.
Do you really think he put that "Report Post To Moderator" button there in order to squash any difference of opinion? Wow. That's rich!
Surely that wouldn 't be the case because you find it "refreshing that he actually listened to both sides ". Right. Does that include Fox News?I do make a point to listen to Fox News from time to time, as evidenced by the fact that I quoted it here.
Usually it just makes me laugh out how they feckless their attacks are. Such as in my favorite expose, "Is Obama Too Skinny to Be President?"
But every once in a while someone there says something worth consideration.
Listen to the other side without feeling defensive and unleashing the attack dogs? Hmmmmm.
On second thought, you would probably best not to even consider it.
It does not seem possible to have a reasonable and respectful dialogue with you. Jackson also provided us with an ignore list. You are now officially on mine.
DB
Punter 127
08-10-08, 16:05
His hero status would have been questioned if he had run for president in 2000.:) Course he would have been pretty old by then. You're probably right Dogg, I'd like to think that wouldn't be the case, but the world has changed.
Punter 127
08-10-08, 16:40
I think you ’re the one that missed the point, I haven't ask for anyone to be censored, I made a simple comment about Sid ’s actions and you went off on and continue on a tirade, about that statement and about me, you completely ignored the rest of the post and my explanation of the statement. I think you ’re really trying to make mountains out of mole hills, in order to attack me personally, but that ’s ok I ’ve got thick skin.
It does not seem possible to have a reasonable and respectful dialogue with you.I would echo those feelings about you and I can ’t think of anyplace I ’d rather be than on Dodger Bulldog ’s ignore list! (Ok possibly one or two places)
[Jackson] is certainly a conservative, but he seems to be able to handle the back-and-forth of different opinions just fine.Yes, but I do find myself shaking my head a lot.
I would catch a bullet in the groin for Obama.
That is how much I despise Joe Biden.
I live in Illinois.
Geraldine Feraro (D) said it best.
"If this guy was not black he would not be here."
It is a shame that he is the first black Presidential canidate.
He is not qualified and without the help of the press he would have never made it. I think with the selection of Biden he has shown his true colors.
Daddy Rulz
08-23-08, 21:59
You Don't Know the Truth About.
Barack Obama Until You Read This Book.
The Case Against Barack Obama.
The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate.
In this shocking exposé, Freddoso builds his case by revealing what the nightly news hasn't told you, including:
* Obama's extensive connections to corrupt Chicago politics—while he claims to be a reformer.
* Obama's plans to increase taxes—amid rising fuel and food prices, he just voted to raise taxes for anyone making more than $32,000
* Obama's dangerous mix of inexperience and poor judgment—evident in his shifting policy positions and the Rev. Wright scandal.
* Obama's radical voting record—he repeatedly voted against legislation to protect babies born alive during failed abortions.
No doubt there will be other books about Barack Obama, but The Case Against Barack Obama is the first comprehensive and critical look at the man who would be president. Freddoso builds a rock-solid case against Obama's "bipartisan reformer" facade, going where most journalists—and books—refuse to tread. Paperback, 264 pages.Written by David Freddoso, hmmm writes for The National Review, published by Regnery who published that other fine piece of work "Unfit for Command" about John Kerry during the last election. Hmmmm seeing a pattern here, yup, yup definitely, definitely a pattern. Just once I pray thee o Lord just once in my life let them both just tell the truth and let us decide.
let them both just tell the truth.YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!
Now there's an actor who I would vote for.
"* Voted against a moratorium on earmarks."
Now I am definitely voting Obama / Biden because I would definitely support a moratorium on a moratorium on earmarks.
Ok, I admit it. I have no idea what a fucking earmark is.
Punter 127
08-24-08, 22:57
"* Voted against a moratorium on earmarks."
Now I am definitely voting Obama / Biden because I would definitely support a moratorium on a moratorium on earmarks.
Ok, I admit it. I have no idea what a fucking earmark is.You ’d vote for a fucking “yaller dog” as long as it claimed to be a Democrat!
I am curious why you are quoting the national review--which is right of Dick Chaney and Carl Rove and the libertarian party which is right of the National Review for information on Obamah and team. It strikes me as not your typical way of doing things. I haven't always aggreed with you, but generally you quote from quality sources and I respect your analysis even if I disagree with it.
We all are learning more about the candidates. Let's not get "swift boated" here.
I never would accept Michael Moore as an authoritative source on W, although he tells an interesting and entertaining story which is biased and not always factually correct. I was also grossed out by Kity Kelley's book on W and the family which repeated in graphic detail about W learning how to drink at 19 as described by frat brothers. I personally despise W and think that he will be remembered by history not favorably, but I also think the swift boat type politics may lead to the end of the noble experiment that started in 1776. When a decorated two tour of duty viet vet is remebered as a coward and a daddy's boy whose air national guard records are all lost is painted as a great warrior something about our way of doing things is broken and needs mending. Syd this has nothing to do with you. I'm typing with the flue and getting ready to be served up bread and circus instead of information important to making vital decisions.
During my recent stay in BA, I had dental implants done. In the USA, I would have required major bone grafting. In Argentinia, the dentist could use new technology developed in Korea using stems cells to stimulate bone growth.
The dentist explained the delays in approval in the USA because of the rules on stem cells. We maybe really nearing the end of a great experiment if we do not closely watch our leaders and the deals they make to get elected. I remember when John McCain publically ridiculed an envangical leader for saying that 9/11 was God's punishment for condoning homosexuality in the USA. John McCain has made peace with this style of thought and embraced it's leadership and the people he once stood up and denounced.
Punter 127
08-25-08, 12:39
"* Voted against a moratorium on earmarks."
Now I am definitely voting Obama / Biden because I would definitely support a moratorium on a moratorium on earmarks.
Ok, I admit it. I have no idea what a fucking earmark is.Earmarks are requests for money by a specific legislator, usually for his constituency, added onto often unrelated government spending bills.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/13/earmark.vote/
I.E. pork barrel or a "rider" which is the term I know this by.
Punter 127
08-25-08, 14:10
I am curious why you are quoting the national review--which is right of Dick Chaney and Carl Rove and the libertarian party which is right of the National Review for information on Obamah and team. I ’m curious how can you refer to the Libertarian Party as right of the National Review?
Would you call the democrat party to the right as well considering; The National Platform of the Libertarian Party indicates they are pro choice, anti war, even pro gay rights.
Do you just automatically describe everyone that doesn ’t like “Bo ” as being to the right, as if that was something inherently bad, if so would you also call the eighteen million Clinton voters as being to the right?
Perhaps you should read the platform of the Libertarian Party before you start bad mouthing them.
http://www.lp.org/platform
The Libertarian Party Platform also says they favor Personal Liberty, and considering this is a monger ’s forum you should also look at their position on prostitution;
“Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.”
We all are learning more about the candidates. Let's not get "swift boated" here.Bob perhaps you would like to give us a list of media we should accept information from.
You know like “MoveOn, USAction, Americans United for Change, ” or other George Soros Masterminded and supported groups.
How about other members of the “Democrat Attack Machine like, Main Stream Media outlets such as ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, PBS or newspapers such as The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post or Magazine like Time, Newsweek and the New Yorker ”
My point is debate your position if you like but "Don't shoot the messenger"!
Anyone know of a decent, public place with TV here that will broadcast the Democratic National Convention in English? Preferably the one in 2008.
Anyone know of a decent, public place with TV here that will broadcast the Democratic National Convention in English? Preferably the one in 2008.The Thursday night big shindig will be shown at Sugar-Costa Rica 4619, at Armenia. The festivities start at 7:30.
Rock Harders
08-26-08, 02:41
ongers-
El Alamo will be showing the Democratic National Convention live in English on both CNN, for the intelligent, liberal people, and on Fox News, for people like Jackson and Rush Limbaugh.
Suerte,
Rock Harders
Their views would lead to complete kaos--no regulation. The big fish eat the little fish, no securities regulation, no banking regulation. William.
Buckeley, the founder of the national review, was intellectually consistent and believed in not regulating gay life styles and marijuana. I watched him at a locale debate when he was asked about this issues and how they fit into his intellectual frame work. The logical answers were "do not regulate when in doubt". On a personal level he was concerned about government not regualting marijuana as it might be more dangerous than presented.
I dout that many people would consider the libertatian party as a moderate and dependable souce for basic information WITH A MINIMAL TILT. Why is it that the libertaians tend to support the same candidates that the neoconseveratives and far right wing evangelicals support. Libertarians, to be intellectually consistant, should not be pushing for constitutional amendments at the state level on issues such as: abortion rights and the teaching of evolution and natural selection in public schools? Yet the libertarians end up supporting candidates that favor these positions. Libertarianism as practiced in the real politic, either runs independent candidates that don't gather the support of ralph nader or get lumped in with the neoconvervatives and far Christian right. Fox news is more moderate than the libertarian party.
T. Boone Pickens financed the swift boaters. A hydrocarbons multi-billionaire.
He got his money's worth from the bushies.
I do not know you Punter and you may have whatever views please you.
Syd is someone that I know and I respect. I did not understand his choice of sourses.
Mongers-
El Alamo will be showing the Democratic National Convention live in English on both CNN, for the intelligent, liberal people, and on Fox News, for people like Jackson and Rush Limbaugh.
Suerte,
Rock HardersHa ha, I never thought of CNN as neither liberal nor intelligent but I suppose 'es lo que hay.' So should I install myself on the left side of the bar?
I didn't make it past the part where he said Colin Powell would make a good president.
I think Clinton, Obama, and McCain all suck. But on the other hand the choice seems pretty clear:
If you want to country to continue down the same road it has for the last 8 years, vote for McCain. If not, vote for Obama.
Personally, I'll pick the latter.
If you want to country to continue down the same road it has for the last 8 years, vote for McCain. If not, vote for Obama.I'm sure it has occurred to you that there is no guarantee that "new road" will not be worse. There is a case to be made that Obama could make things worse given the power he is going to be given and a government that gets things done is generally a Bad Thing (tm)
I'll vote for McCain simply because his enemies will prevent him from doing anything.
The article below was written by syndicated columnist, Thomas Sowell, a black man. I've read both Sowell's editorials and academic work and somehow this article does not sound like him. Then again maybe he's just getting old and cranky.
I did find this [1] but I still wonder.
[1] http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/t/thomas-sowell.htm
I'm sure it has occurred to you that there is no guarantee that "new road" will not be worse. There is a case to be made that Obama could make things worse given the power he is going to be given and a government that gets things done is generally a Bad Thing (tm)
I'll vote for McCain simply because his enemies will prevent him from doing anything.Well, I don't think anything could be worse. But who knows. You may be right.
Either way, there are a lot of tough problems to solve by the next President. It's not a job I would want.
Anybody done her?
A foolhardy attempt to shore up Christian support for McCain?
Less foreign policy experience than one of Obama's kids?
Would a disaffected Hillary supporter actually vote for an anti abortion advocate?
Is this the most obvious, purely "marketing" choice for VP ever? Even more so than Geraldine Ferraro?
If its all about "marketing" and nothing else, why not go with Angelina Jolie?
If McCain gets elected and then kicks the bucket, the USA could have a royal couple in the White House.
Gato Hunter
08-29-08, 17:22
I am guessing that Dan Quayle was booked for the next four.
Get used to having Obama as the president for the next 4 years. This chick is cute and all, but she's not gonna fly with either the left or the right.
Regards,
BM.
Daddy Rulz
08-30-08, 13:12
Just watch it.
http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/39179-mccain-s-youtube-problem-just-became-a-nightmare
Same old song and dance
I think McCains new VP pick actually contridicts the whole GOP attack on Obama.
"Hes too young and inexperienced to run the country"
Is it not correct that if the President dies the VP becomes president?
The average male USA Life expectancy is around 75yrs.
McCain is 72 and if he passes on USA will have a 44ish female president with 2 years experience as a governor of one of the most unpopulated and out of touch states in the USA.
I guess now they better back off on the lack of experience attacks, as they are guilty of the same.
I think McCains new VP pick actually contridicts the whole GOP attack on Obama.
"Hes too young and inexperienced to run the country"
Is it not correct that if the President dies the VP becomes president?
The average male USA Life expectancy is around 75yrs.
McCain is 72 and if he passes on USA will have a 44ish female president with 2 years experience as a governor of one of the most unpopulated and out of touch states in the USA.
I guess now they better back off on the lack of experience attacks, as they are guilty of the same.She's got quite a rack though. That's got to count for something. Soccer moms for president, what a novel idea.
Regards,
BM.
Be careful what you pray for.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/2553367/Evangelicals-asked-to-pray-for-rain-at-Barack-Obama-nomination.html
Because now the Republicans don't have a National Convention! Jajaja
Sydney old sport,
Put a rubberband around your head and snap out of it.
Sydney old sport,
Put a rubberband around your head and snap out of it.Funny post, Baccus
I am not sure experience is all that important. I don't think Lincoln had much experience when he was elected President.
However, if I was giving advice to the Democrat's I would advise the Democrats never to bring up Palin's experience or lack of experience.
It seems obvious that the Republicans would love that discusion. Anyone who bases their vote on the experience of the various candidates will realize that Obama is strikingly lacking in experience (not sure it matters that much) and pull the lever for McCain.
It seems to me that the Republicans have cleverly shifted the focus, with the help of the Democrat's criticism of Palin, onto experience where the Republican candidate has a big edge.
You don't like Syd's point of view. Let's not discuss it. Let's make fun of syd.
Syd, most of what you posted is factually correct. The likihood is that McCain will continue down the bushies neoconservative path:
- More war.
- More debt to fight those wars and less taxes for the wealthy.
- a 5th ultra conservative on the supreme court may have radical changes in the way the US government will function. Radical changes in the meaning of the commerce clause, regulation, controls on the executive branch and the right to privacy[which includes activities like this website]
Yes, Obamha is younger and less experienced as Jack Kennedy was younger and less experienced than Richard Nixon. The USA is a country divided. My personal belief his that the healing process and undoing the damage that the neoconversative radicals have done domestically and internationally is more important in the larger picture than most other issues.
OK boys, flame away! The ultra conversatives will consider me stupid because I don't appreciate the beauty of neoconvervatism--I do and it horrifies me. The left wingers will have their own comments. I am bothering to write here because this board has an cross section of educationed people from the usa. I am curious if dialog rather than name calling is possible.
Yes, Obamha is younger and less experienced as Jack Kennedy was younger and less experienced than Richard Nixon. The USA is a country divided.The "Jack Kennedy had less experience" comparison actually doesn't bolster this argument.
For one thing, Jack was a naval officer and a war hero before he ran for President. Barak has never had a command position and has never had his courage tested under fire.
Second, Jack Kennedy's lack of experience, easily observed by Nikita Khrushchev at their 1961 Vienna meeting, of a young, inexperienced, untested American president was disastrous, emboldening Khrushchev to push Kennedy on Berlin -- and then near fatally in Cuba, leading almost directly to the Cuban missile crisis.
Thanks,
Jackson
Soccer moms for president, what a novel idea.
Regards,
BMActually, I believe that she considers herself a "Hockey Mom".
Daddy Rulz
09-01-08, 13:57
"Unlike Senator Obama, my admiration, respect and deep gratitude for America's veterans is something more than a convenient campaign pledge."
Except of course when it comes to voting yes on a bill that would allow them to build a better life after their service to our country. I will show my gratitude by making it harder for them to get an education thereby limiting their options and continuing to serve?
Oh yes and don't forget extending enlistments. I am so grateful to them for their service that we will extend their term of service beyond what they contracted for, can't you see we love these fine young men and women and their hillbilly armor.
To obtain this nomination and he will keep his word on the supreme court appointments, taxes, more debt and to have the usa play policeman to protect our sources of raw materials[read: oil], he will keep quiet on his long term pet project--campaign finance reform. The Carl Rove style attack ads that mccain spoke out against in 2000 will be a major thrust of his campaign.
Jackson, do you really believe that the russians would not have tried to stock pile missles in Cuba if Nixon was elected. Jack Kennedy's service as a PT boat commender [a boat smaller than the sport fisherman the exon would charter for 4 hours when he goes deep sea fishing] was the major reason he was able to negociate effectively with the russians. Character, vision, marshalling and effectively using data available--raw intelligence or intellectual capacity were more likely responsible. Sometime read kennedy's first book, Profiles in Courage. This book started as his honor's thesis while at university.
I cannot help but to respect McCain for his military service and his strength while a prisioner of war. I also respected 30 years of championing vet's rights, political campaigh reform and anti-torture laws. McCain walked away from 30 years of history to cut his deals with the boys--what geneve convention? What happened to McCain--intoxicated by the smell of power. His last chance at 72 years.
Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Harry Truman and Abraham Lincoln were great war time leaders with limited military or zero military service.
OUR foreign military aggression is producing more jijaddists and will radicalize non-radical Muslims over time. Popi Bush would not touch it with a ten foot pole--his Cia experience was the difference, not his few years of service in the military.
I have voted Republican and Democrat. A higher power may be voicing it's own point of view by interfering with the Republican convention via hurricane Gustov.
...And to have the USA play policeman to protect our sources of raw materials [read: oil]And what's wrong with throwing our weight around and protecting our interests?
...Jackson, do you really believe that the Russians would not have tried to stock pile missiles in Cuba if Nixon was elected.Yes.
...Jack Kennedy's service as a PT boat commander [a boat smaller than the sport fisherman the exon would charter for 4 hours when he goes deep sea fishing] was the major reason he was able to negotiate effectively with the Russians.Unfortunately, your characterization here is completely inaccurate in that Kennedy most certainly did not "negotiate effectively with the Russians".
...OUR foreign military aggression is producing more jijaddists and will radicalize non-radical Muslims over time.I disagree, These rabid dogs only respect power, and just like rabid dogs, they need to be "put down" for everyone's safety.
For one thing, Jack was a naval officer and a war hero before he ran for President. Barak has never had a command position and has never had his courage tested under fire.
Thanks,
JacksonNeither did George Bush have any military experience (unlike Kerry) but that didn't stop the Republicans from voting for him which shows the hypocrisy of those who imply that military service is so important-yet ignore it when their own candidate is so lacking.
Suerte.
Stowe
"And what's wrong with throwing our weight around and protecting our interests?"
"I disagree, These rabid dogs only respect power, and just like rabid dogs, they need to be "put down" for everyone's safety."
Jackson,
No one debates the US has an important role in the world and in the past the world has looked to it to "do the right thing". There's a wrong way and a right way to these things. The Republican party supported by around 50% of the voting public has delivered 8 years of the most unfortunate show of "the wrong way". How anyone that suppported it has anything to say now is beyond comprehension. Time to take a furlough and let someone else try to fix the mess.
Another 4 years of swashbuckling cum maverick listing to reckless John McCain with his VP Light, "throwing our weight around" and helping the "rabid dogs" in their recruiting drives really is beyond the pale.
Republicans should really call it a day, mow lawns for the summer, sell Christmas trees, take a field trip, check their bank accounts and stay out of the way for god's sake.
Neither did George Bush have any military experience.I disagree. As I understand the history, George Bush was a Captian and a pilot in the US Air Force, serving in the Texas Air National Guard, which I believe qualifies as "military experience".
The Republican party supported by around 50% of the voting public has delivered 8 years of the most unfortunate show of "the wrong way".I disagree. With the exception of some missteps in the prosecution of the post-liberation in Iraq, I believe that Bush and the Republicans in Congress have done an excellent (not perfect) job. Personally, I'm proud of the way we've developed a reputation in the international community that if you fuck with us, we will KICK YOUR ASS!
We are the 900 pound gorillia, so there's no reason for any American Citizen to be intimitated or afraid of any other country or peoples. In fact, it should be just the reverse.
I disagree. With the exception of some missteps in the prosecution of the post-liberation in Iraq, I believe that Bush and the Republicans in Congress have done an excellent (not perfect) job. Personally, I'm proud of the way we've developed a reputation in the international community that if you fuck with us, we will KICK YOUR ASS!
We are the 900 pound gorillia, so there's no reason for any American Citizen to be intimitated or afraid of any other country or peoples. In fact, it should be just the reverse.I'm betting Jackson wears a toga around the house.;)
We are the 900 pound gorillia, so there's no reason for any American Citizen to be intimitated or afraid of any other country or peoples. In fact, it should be just the reverse.In my opinion, this is the sense of entitlement that is causing problems, not only for our country, but for the world in general. And, in fact, only makes US citizens less safe abroad.
Do you honestly think that if you get shanked in Palermo Viejo that the US Army is going to come and avenge you? Or are you talking domestically? Well, I guess if the borders are closed, then we will be 'safe' but it probably also means it will be harder for the mongering masses to do their deed.
What was your point anyway?
Member #4112
09-01-08, 22:23
I have to agree with Jackson, we do have to protect our interests around the world and I don't think "talk" is worth much when dealing with Islamic extremists be they in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, or else where. They only respect force and the willingness to use it. When the shit hits the fan who does everyone come running to, that's right the US. They may not like us but they do fear us and I'll take that in place of respect.
I know the liberals wish to believe if you make nice they will come around. Sorry it does not work that way in the "real world". The "civilized world" you live and debate in is only possible due to our current overwhelming power to protect it. You can debate in your airy realms from now till doomsday but when the rubber meets the road, Mao said it best "political power flows from the barrel of a gun." Ask the folks in Georgia how much talking to the Russians or how much the hand wringing in the West did them. Nada!
My political cast is independent, and I'm not thrilled by McCain but at least he has his head screwed on straight and sees the world for what it is, not what he wants it to be. Obama sees the world through rose colored glasses and I am not sure we will have the time for him to learn on the job while Russia begins to flex it's military muscle again and Iran works on the bomb and intercontinental delivery systems. We had three years in WWII to get it together to win the war and the US mainland was untouched. It might be a little more difficult to withstand three years of nukes taking down cities in the US and still have the will to come back and win.
I spend a little time in our escapade in Southeast Asia and have a daughter in her third year at West Point so guys I have had and now do have a little more on the line with this election. While I have to admit we really don't have much out there to vote for this time, I would rather have McCain leading than Obama.
Rave on guys,
Doppelganger
I have to agree with Jackson, we do have to protect our interests around the world.
DoppelgangerWhy don't we just take over the world. Too many Americans just love being the big dog on the block and love to have us (the US) bully others. There seems to be a certain faction within this country that just loves to kill-push others around, etc.
Part of the reason we are so hated around the world is because we have interfered in other nations and their governments:
Nicaragua (assisted in the overthrow of the elected Sandinista gov't)
Panama (1989 invasion)
Cuba (Bay of Pigs)
Dominican Republic (1965 invasion).
Saudia Arabia (prop up unpopular gov't- for the oil companies)
Bolivia (for the oil companies)
Argentina (via the World Money fund -requiring 1 to 1 peso to dollar xchg)
El Salvador (financed an unpopular gov't-thus keeping the civil war going)
Africa (preventing teaching of birth control or lose financing)
Haiti (many times-last was in the 80's when we disposed of Pres. Duvalier)
Peru (we helped prop up the unpopular gov't in the early 90's to protect the rich and powerful)
Honduras (supported the unpopular Honduras military govt so we could station troop there to fight in Nicaragua)
Grenada (1983 invasion)
The damned Monroe Doctrine should have been outlawed decades ago.
This does not include considering our involvement in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, etc. Some may have been necessary (Korea, perhaps); Kuwait-probably.
Having said the above I do not think the US is ALWAYS bad, evil or wrong-nor am I a bleeding heart liberal. We do more good in the world than any other country but that good is usually done by organizations not the politicians (both republican and democratic administrations) who just want to protect corporate American and the rich.
All our good is lost by all the incidents where we impose our will (economically or militarily) on others.
Of course, there will be those that will either be like Ostriches, or will say; "so what, we are the strongest". Well, we won't be the strongest forever. Like the old saying goes: "what goes around comes around" and I just think much of the world is just waiting for us to be torn down (internally or externally) because of our empirical attitude. I suspect there won't be anyone there to stand with us or help us when we need it.
Maybe it's time we keep our nose out of other people's lives, business and countries!
Suerte.
Stowe
For two hundred years we have been a country split down the middle by our lawyer leaders. Change our leaders, but we can't, because the lawyers, those that we are forced to elect, make our laws. Nothing has changed except the dates.
We need to make a law that no lawyers can be a government official.
My observations.
Jes.
Tejanolibre, quiero comprate una cerveza!
Doggboy,
I hope there's a straight jacket under that toga you surmise Jackson wears.
"I believe that Bush and the Republicans in Congress have done an excellent (not perfect) job. Personally, I'm proud of the way we've developed a reputation in the international community that if you fuck with us, we will KICK YOUR ASS!"
How much glue do you sniff through Jackson in a week on average?
The US has always been strong, it's only been the last 8 years that it's turned stupid, criminal and had to blatantly buy it's allies instead of earn them.
So Doppelganger is that a yellow alert or an orange alert.
It's all so reminiscent of the fear mongering the modern day Goebels used to manipulate the US population after the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center back in the 2002, 2003 and 2004. You know when they wanted to stay in power for another four years.
Keep stoking that fear and adrenaline, it's contagious and you'll bring on just what you say you fear. Like McCain, he likes to excercise that rhetoric and "shoot from the hip". Yeah howdy, head screwed on a little too tight maybe. But he is a POW, so undoubtedly he can point that out in any given difficult situation.
Thank you for interviewing for the President's position at our company. We were very impressed with your oratorical skills. You interviewed well with all the directors. We thought that you were the man that we seek. But our ''backround research'' team discovered problems: 1. You have no business experience. 2. You have no experience managing people. 3. In fact, you have never managed any business. 4. We need a skilled man with the Congress, but you only served a few days there with no record of success. 5. You have no business contacts. 6. Upon investigation, we discovered all your records were missing=strange! 6. You have no international or military experience. 7. Plus many other matters. We respectfully must reject you as a candidate for the President of our company. However, we will offer you a Sales Associate's position in Chicago. Your contacts with the Daley Machine will be invaluable. Could you relocate? Thanks again, Sid XXXXXXXHe can't do any worse than the war mongering, Vietnam dodging, budget busting, idiot we have now.
And McCain- running on his integrity / honest. Mr. Infidelity - Mr. Keating 5 member? All he thinks about is killing-I quote:
Bomb Bomb Iran - opps! He meant Barbara Ann.
When told that the US cigarette companies are violating our own trade restrictions by sending cigarettes to Iran, his response:
Good, hopefully it will kill them all.
The Iranian people our not our enemy-they don't want the government they have either!
Member #4112
09-02-08, 00:53
No Bacchus9 this is not a color coded alert. No I don't think we are always correct, but if you think if we leave others along they will reciprocate you are truly a lost sole, because these folks will never leave us or anyone else alone, England, Spain, Italy, France, Philippians, ect.
Islamists believe their "God" empowers them to invade and convert to Islam or slay all infidels (or take them as slaves) in any country at any time, it is their duty. Partner if you are not Muslim then infidel describes you. There is only one way, their way, period.
This has nothing to do with being American, check your history, the Moorish invasions of Spain and Europe from Africa. The Moors were Islamists, same code, same belief systems back in the 12th century and they are still following them today. Guess you would say George Bush and America caused that one too?
Doppelganger
Member #4112
09-02-08, 01:03
No Stowe the Iranian people by in large are not our enemy, but they lack the freedom to choose their own government. The Mullahs have to certify all candidates and the reformers are always eliminated from the running. Not to mention the Revolutionary Guard Corps over shadows even the military in Iran, these guys make the SS look like Sunday school kids. It will not be the Iranian people who pull the trigger it will be the Mullahs, the people will be the ones who suffer since the Mullahs will scatter like cockroaches when it finally hit's the fan. When they over threw the monarchy they wanted "Change", they just did not know it was back to the 12th Century!
Doppelganger
No Bacchus9 this is not a color coded alert. No I don't think we are always correct, but if you think if we leave others along they will reciprocate you are truly a lost sole, because these folks will never leave us or anyone else alone, England, Spain, Italy, France, Philippians, ect.
Islamists believe their "God" empowers them to invade and convert to Islam or slay all infidels (or take them as slaves) in any country at any time, it is their duty. Partner if you are not Muslim then infidel describes you. There is only one way, their way, period.
This has nothing to do with being American, check your history, the Moorish invasions of Spain and Europe from Africa. The Moors were Islamists, same code, same belief systems back in the 12th century and they are still following them today. Guess you would say George Bush and America caused that one too?
DoppelgangerThe biggest Muslim country in the World is Indonesia. With a population very near that of the US 80% of the people are Muslim. Not quite the stereotype Muslims many would like the World to believe. Their last Prime Minister was a woman!
The "Moors" or most of the Arab World has a problem with the West (of which the US is the most visible head today) that goes back to the 12th century and to say that it is caused by religious belief is as simplistic as to say that the conflict in Ireland is between Catholics and Protestants!
So Doppelganger is that a yellow alert or an orange alert.
It's all so reminiscent of the fear mongering the modern day Goebels used to manipulate the US population after the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center back in the 2002, 2003 and 2004. You know when they wanted to stay in power for another four years.
Keep stoking that fear and adrenaline, it's contagious and you'll bring on just what you say you fear. Like McCain, he likes to excercise that rhetoric and "shoot from the hip". Yeah howdy, head screwed on a little too tight maybe. But he is a POW, so undoubtedly he can point that out in any given difficult situation.Hmm - A candidate that has a history of surrendering? Strange people you Americans!
He can't do any worse than the war mongering, Vietnam dodging, budget busting, idiot we have now.Oh, yes he can.
Far, far worse.
It's all so reminiscent of the fear mongering the modern day Goebels used to manipulate the US population after the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center back in the 2002, 2003 and 2004. You know when they wanted to stay in power for another four years.
Keep stoking that fear and adrenaline, it's contagious and you'll bring on just what you say you fear. Like McCain, he likes to excercise that rhetoric and "shoot from the hip". Yeah howdy, head screwed on a little too tight maybe. But he is a POW, so undoubtedly he can point that out in any given difficult situation.I'm not being manipulated, I've just got my eyes open to the world's realities.
Do you know what's nice about being an appeaser? You get to muddle along with your head in the sand while other good people, in the process of keeping the world safe for themselves, will inadvertently keep it safe for you too.
Thanks,
Jackson
...The reason we are so hated around the world...That's patently inaccurate.
I've done some traveling myself, and the only people I can find that "hate America" are a vocal minority of college students, their professors, and the leftist-leaning media outlets.
The world's growing middle class generally admire Americans, the efficiency and transparency of our governmental systems, our business acumen, and the life style that we've created for ourselves.
Thanks,
Jackson
If you acknowledge that there are rapid dogs who will kill innocent women and childern to impose their extreme non-mainstream views; then Not even a substantial minority of muslems are jijadists. The more the USA abandons a concern for international public opinion and the international diplomatic community and it's traditions and institutions; the more muslems will be driven to extremes and stronger anti-usa feelings. Treat people without basic respect and they will hate your government. Act like a 900 lbs beast and eventually the "little" people will destroy that 900 lbs beast. Whether by refusing to buy our government debt,
Not supporting our currency or not supporting our foreign policy objectives when we lie to the UN. Why did Popi Bush build an international coalition including most of the usa's historical friends and allies and Baby bush spoke of freedom fries and depended on paying off third rate world powers to join his coalition.
George W. Bush is not respected internationally. Most people do not brand the entire population of the usa with the distaste that they feel for our president.
A few years ago, the public distatste for W was so strong, that I would say I am canadian. Today we have the most bombs. One day in the near future, china will have more power than the usa. I hope that those future chinese leaders do not think like some of the members of this forum.
I am not trying to change the point of view of my extreme opponents, but I am asking the reasonable intelligent people in the middle to think about the implications of continued neoconservative extremists in power and what that will mean for the USA's position in the world over the next 20 to 40 years.
Power will shift and change, the usa was respected for generally holding the moral high ground compared to other great world powers. How many wars can we fight before we destroy our economy.
Member #4112
09-02-08, 09:05
Bob, no one on this post ever said all Muslim are Islamist, it is the minority who follow the radical Wahabi sect teachings. Maybe it is time for the Muslim community to police themselves? They don't because they are as afraid of these radicals as we are.
As far as the anti US feelings, in case you have not noticed both Germany and France have installed PRO US leaders who are now helping not bashing the US. The old war monger "W" must have done something right if the folks in these nations are again becoming our allies and not our detractors.
I hope you are of the Michale Moore group that believe God sent Gustov to punish the bad Republicans? Give me a break, we are the only nation in the world that keeps reinventing ourselves to continue to compete in the world, over and over and over again. If we are so evil why do so many people risk their lives to get here?
Where else could McCain get a babe like Palin for a running mate, well France does have Carla Brunni, kinda makes Sara look a little shoddy.
Lighten up guys its just Life!
Doppelganger
That's patently inaccurate.
I've done some traveling myself, and the only people I can find that "hate America" are a vocal minority of college students, their professors, and the leftist-leaning media outlets.
The world's growing middle class generally admire Americans, the efficiency and transparency of our governmental systems, our business acumen, and the life style that we've created for ourselves.
Thanks,
JacksonThe ostrich effect in play, here.
Sorry Jackson but it is ABSOLUTELY true as every poll taken in the past 5 years by US pollsters taken in other countries on how those in other countries feel about us has reached all-time lows to the point where the majority do not like the US-specifically the Gov't and US businesses which they blame for the 'global' economy situation which has negatively impacted so many (thank you Clinton!
Separate US citizens and the US gov't and our Gov't is despised throughout the world. They kiss our ass because of our military and the money we send them, not our of respect or love.
Anecdotal evidence based on your personal travels is meaningless as it is EXTREMELY limited. And the fact that that is what you base your opinions on should be indicative of your position.
Suerte,
Stowe
No Stowe the Iranian people by in large are not our enemy, but they lack the freedom to choose their own government. The Mullahs have to certify all candidates and the reformers are always eliminated from the running. Not to mention the Revolutionary Guard Corps over shadows even the military in Iran, these guys make the SS look like Sunday school kids. It will not be the Iranian people who pull the trigger it will be the Mullahs, the people will be the ones who suffer since the Mullahs will scatter like cockroaches when it finally hit's the fan. When they over threw the monarchy they wanted "Change", they just did not know it was back to the 12th Century!
DoppelgangerI agree the Iranian people did not have a choice-actually they do. They can overthrow the idiots but that takes courage and balls which they do not yet have. Generally, they are more pacifistic than aggressive from the few I have met.
You have personal knowledge that the Revolutionary Guard are worse than the SS? Can you provide the info that supports that? Were you in Germany during WWII? How do you know this to be true or are you just making it up to support you opinion that the Guard and the Mulahs are monsters?
I read 3 papers and have NEVER seen one article detailing all the Guard do or any comparison to the SS.
Suerte,
Stowe
Daddy Rulz
09-02-08, 12:57
That's patently inaccurate.
I've done some traveling myself, and the only people I can find that "hate America" are a vocal minority of college students, their professors, and the leftist-leaning media outlets.
The world's growing middle class generally admire Americans, the efficiency and transparency of our governmental systems, our business acumen, and the life style that we've created for ourselves.
Thanks,
JacksonGotta go with Stowe here even though he is a disgusting butt fucker. We are pretty universally despised.
You gotta start watching something besides Fox news brother. I know your married to the "Bush is great" position and I would never publicly expect you to change it, but you oughta look around just a little.
Just an aside on Iran. The majority of the population supports the government's attempts to develop nuclear power and would go bonkers if the US upped the military ante. What they ARE pissed off about is their economy.
And though I certainly don't agree with all of Doppleganger's opinions, the mullahs are a pack of assholes. The comparison in the USA would be if the nutjob christian evangelicals were in power. Oops! They have been for the past eight years!
And, while I'm spouting off a little. Not all, but much of the Middle East mess originates in the ongoing stalemate between Israel and the Palestinians. The inability to make any progress there has led to massive rage throughout the region which as been capitalized on by those with their own power and control agenda (on BOTH sides of the conflict)
If the West was really interested in sorting out alot of the reasons for this mess they would stop allowing the tail to wag the dog (I. E. Get tough with Israel about their stonewalling the peace process) Its a damn shame that this has been allowed to go on for so long. If the peace process had been succesful 10-15 years ago, some of the current problems could have been avoided. But the cat is out of the bag and the horsies have left the barn and it done burnt down. Now you have so many bad apples throughout the region that it will require a monumental effort to make progress (with Pakistan the next to be a big pain in the ass)
My 2 centavos.
AND, why the fuck can't I access Yahoo for the past two days!
Member #4112
09-02-08, 13:37
Actually Stowe they don't really have much of a chance since they never get the opportunity to "over throw the government" via the political process which is denied to them by the mullahs. Nor do they have much of a chance by open revolt since all the guns are in the hands of the military and the Revolutionary Guard Units (RGU) Ask yourself Stowe, do you have the "guts" to go head to head with a guy with an AK when all you got is a hoe (garden type not female) It gets a lot different when those bumble bees with a firecracker tied to their tail go flying by your ear.
Guess you did not read those papers very closely; there have been several articles by Iranian dissidents cataloguing the RGU's activities, testimony before Congress by both military and civilian experts, besides intelligence briefs some of which are published. I'll see if I can get you a link for the last one.
Not happy with oppressing their own people they like to export their brand of oppression to other countries via training cadres and material to places like Lebanon, Gaza, Iraq, Afghanistan, ect. Sort of like the old Soviet Union and Cuba did down in Africa. Does any of that ring a bell?
Rave On Guys.
Doppelganger
Gato Hunter
09-02-08, 13:44
Not happy with oppressing their own people they like to export their brand of oppression to other countries via training cadres and material to places like Lebanon, Gaza, Iraq, Afghanistan, ect. Sort of like the old Soviet Union and Cuba did down in Africa. Does any of that ring a bell? This sounds like the School of the Americas.
Member #4112
09-02-08, 13:45
You can not access Yahoo due to the all powerful all knowing all seeing Evangelical Christian Right Wing Conspiracy they have done it all! Maniacal laughter!
Member #4112
09-02-08, 13:47
Naa - just guys with too much time on their hands venting.
Have a good one.
Doppelganger
You can not access Yahoo due to the all powerful all knowing all seeing Evangelical Christian Right Wing Conspiracy they have done it all! Maniacal laughter!The Exons! Literally!;)
Member #4112
09-02-08, 14:02
Yea but you can never find one of those Exons when you need one!
I agree the mulahs are extremely bad and think Isreal should negotiate and compromise a bit more.
Just an aside on Iran. The majority of the population supports the government's attempts to develop nuclear power and would go bonkers if the US upped the military ante. What they ARE pissed off about is their economy.
And though I certainly don't agree with all of Doppleganger's opinions, the mullahs are a pack of assholes. The comparison in the USA would be if the nutjob christian evangelicals were in power. Oops! They have been for the past eight years!
And, while I'm spouting off a little. Not all, but much of the Middle East mess originates in the ongoing stalemate between Israel and the Palestinians. The inability to make any progress there has led to massive rage throughout the region which as been capitalized on by those with their own power and control agenda (on BOTH sides of the conflict)
If the West was really interested in sorting out alot of the reasons for this mess they would stop allowing the tail to wag the dog (I. E. Get tough with Israel about their stonewalling the peace process) Its a damn shame that this has been allowed to go on for so long. If the peace process had been succesful 10-15 years ago, some of the current problems could have been avoided. But the cat is out of the bag and the horsies have left the barn and it done burnt down. Now you have so many bad apples throughout the region that it will require a monumental effort to make progress (with Pakistan the next to be a big pain in the ass)
My 2 centavos.
AND, why the fuck can't I access Yahoo for the past two days!
So the Iranians compared the mulahs to the SS? Or was that you? I doubt anyone in Iran was even alive in 1945-little on living in Germany when the SS were doing their shit. All those articles you imply exist must be on the web. Point one out that supports your claim and I would reconsider that what you posted was just your (somewhat biased) opinion. Having said thAt I certainly do not think the mulahs are choirboys.
Actually Stowe they don't really have much of a chance since they never get the opportunity to "over throw the government" via the political process which is denied to them by the mullahs. Nor do they have much of a chance by open revolt since all the guns are in the hands of the military and the Revolutionary Guard Units (RGU) Ask yourself Stowe, do you have the "guts" to go head to head with a guy with an AK when all you got is a hoe (garden type not female) It gets a lot different when those bumble bees with a firecracker tied to their tail go flying by your ear.
Guess you did not read those papers very closely; there have been several articles by Iranian dissidents cataloguing the RGU's activities, testimony before Congress by both military and civilian experts, besides intelligence briefs some of which are published. I'll see if I can get you a link for the last one.
Not happy with oppressing their own people they like to export their brand of oppression to other countries via training cadres and material to places like Lebanon, Gaza, Iraq, Afghanistan, ect. Sort of like the old Soviet Union and Cuba did down in Africa. Does any of that ring a bell?
Rave On Guys.
Doppelganger
Looks like the McCain folks made an impulsive decision on Palin because the right wing of the party didn't cotton to Lieberman and some others. The consequences:
1. Palin has hired an attorney due to an investigation of possible ethical / criminal lapses of a few years back.
2. Her eldest daughter is a going to be a teenage mommie. No abortion for you, you whoare.
3. Her husband is a drunk.
New Orleans sounds like a bad place for she and her family to be camping. Get out the short leash!
Ha ha ha,
This one made me laugh.
The rest of the thread is crap.
Regards,
BM.
2. Her eldest daughter is a going to be a teenage mommie. No abortion for you, you whoare.
Gato Hunter
09-02-08, 15:55
The daughter has said that she "will" be getting married.
Now that's a shotgun wedding!
Doppelganger,
"As far as the anti US feelings, in case you have not noticed both Germany and France have installed PRO US leaders who are now helping not bashing the US. The old war monger "W" must have done something right if the folks in these nations are again becoming our allies and not our detractors."
Classic Americancentric thinking. Yep, the citizens of France and Germany elected those new leaders of their countries to honor GW Bush and the nitwits that voted him into office.
"I hope you are of the Michale Moore group that believe God sent Gustov to punish the bad Republicans? Give me a break, we are the only nation in the world that keeps reinventing ourselves to continue to compete in the world, over and over and over again. If we are so evil why do so many people risk their lives to get here?"
Michael Moore? Only evangelical nuts believe in God's retribution on a particular group, although God knows the Republicans would be prime candidates if it were true. People risk their lives to escape poverty and unbearable situations where they live. They come for the money.
"Where else could McCain get a babe like Palin for a running mate, well France does have Carla Brunni, kinda makes Sara look a little shoddy."
Arkansas or Kentucky? Where was that movie "Deliverance" based on?
Originally Posted by Bacchus9
It's all so reminiscent of the fear mongering the modern day Goebels used to manipulate the US population after the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center back in the 2002, 2003 and 2004. You know when they wanted to stay in power for another four years.
Keep stoking that fear and adrenaline, it's contagious and you'll bring on just what you say you fear. Like McCain, he likes to excercise that rhetoric and "shoot from the hip". Yeah howdy, head screwed on a little too tight maybe. But he is a POW, so undoubtedly he can point that out in any given difficult situation.
I'm not being manipulated, I've just got my eyes open to the world's realities.
Do you know what's nice about being an appeaser? You get to muddle along with your head in the sand while other good people, in the process of keeping the world safe for themselves, will inadvertently keep it safe for you too.
Thanks,
JacksonIt doesn't read that way, that you've got your eyes open to the world's realities, only some of them. More like you've got the IV running from Fox News and an antiquated sense of what Americans were once in the world.
Appeaser, ignoramus, coward, raving looney, there's a long list of people in the world who are protected by the bravery and common sense of good leaders.
Unfortunately Republicans and the ideas of their neo-con intellectuals have bankrupted their roles as leaders in the past 8 years. We need good people to keep the world safe, if it's still possible.
Gotta go with Stowe here even though he is a disgusting butt fucker. We are pretty universally despised.Hey DR.
Are you insulting or complimenting me? When the hell you going to be in BA when I am, you pervert?
Suerte.
Stowe
Looks like the McCain folks made an impulsive decision on Palin because the right wing of the party didn't cotton to Lieberman and some others. The consequences:
1. Palin has hired an attorney due to an investigation of possible ethical / criminal lapses of a few years back.
2. Her eldest daughter is a going to be a teenage mommie. No abortion for you, you whoare.
3. Her husband is a drunk.
New Orleans sounds like a bad place for she and her family to be camping. Get out the short leash!While this pick looks stupid since she has MUCH less experience than Obama, which has been about the only thing McCain could attack him on, I think the daughter and husband should not be involved in this. Any and all of her actions, yes. But not the daughter or husband. She has little to no control over other people's actions.
This is an example of what is wrong with our politics-everyone attacks everyone for any possible thing. I think it is absolutely wrong for the media and / or the democrats to attack the daughter or husband, just as I think it is wrong when the Republicans do it. We need to actually require politicians to address issues and their record, not bring up this kind of crap. It avoids the real issues of this country.
Once upon a time the media actually investigated and questioned our politicians and held them up to their promises or questioned when they did not stand for anything.
Suerte.
Stowe
Thanks for the letter. I am sure this isn't a unique opinion. I am sure there is not a single person in Alaska that feels differently about her. She probably was elected with 100% of the vote.
Whoever wrote this letter apparently thinks Palin is the second coming of Christ. Jesus, how glowing of a letter. Moses wouldn't have gotten this good of a letter from God. No bias here.
2 years in office in one of the smallest states in the Union and she is Margaret Thatcher! What a crock. How desperate are you to post insignificant stuff like this? One letter out of hundreds of thousands of opinions?
She was mayor of a town with a population of about 8,000, from what I gather. Tremendous experience!
Suerte.
Stowe.
A golfing buddy's wife in Fountain Hills AZ has a friend in Alaska, and emailed her to get a first-hand opinion of Sarah Palin. Forgive me for sending such a lengthy letter, but I considered the information to be important for you to know. Please give it a read, and draw your own conclusion: Hope all is going well with you all.
Best regards,
JIM XXXX.
Judy,
Sarah Palin is the US 's answer to Margaret Thatcher! Anyone who thinks she cannot handle the job or deal briskly and efficiently with ANY issue, including foreign governments. Well, they haven't met our Sarah <grin>.
As an Alaskan resident as well as a resident of Wasilla, AK, where Sarah Palin was at one time Mayor. I can speak with confidence. Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska is exactly what she portrayed during her introduction this morning and exactly what our US Government needs. She is ethical to a fault (if there is such a thing) a refreshing change to the status-quo and as smart and determined a PERSON (gender really isn't an issue here as far as I'm concerned) as anyone could ask for at the head of government.
Sarah is no naďve "small town mayor" – she just *started out* there. Btw, as Mayor of Wasilla, she brought this "small town" through a lot of GOOD changes and left it at the end of her term having grown to the 4th largest CITY in Alaska – a lot of growth and a stronger economic base than ever before.
She has EXECUTIVE experience *running a government* (something NONE of the other candidates can actually boast, even John McCain <g>) as Governor of Alaska and got there by defeating the *incumbent* Republican Governor, who was definitely part of the "old school" and who WAS very much in the pocket of the big oil companies. We in Alaska wanted change – and we got it in the person of Sarah Palin!
Sarah Palin is everything she looks to be and more. Her approval rating as Governor of Alaska has been as high as 95% and is currently leveled out consistently in the upper 80 percentile throughout the state (and in both parties) - the HIGHEST approval rating of ANY sitting Governor.
Sarah has been turning around corruption in the Legislature of Alaska - turning things on their ear for that matter; cutting spending in spite of the increased income the state is currently receiving due to the high oil prices - she has insisted on putting a huge amount of the "windfall" into savings for the future rather than spending, spending, spending - and has insisted from the get-go on what she refers to as "honest, ethical and transparent governing" - no more closed door meetings and dealings - the big oil companies thought she would be a pushover and have learned better to their chagrin.
She understands the "real people" and the economic issues we all face (Alaskans along with the rest of the country) - she was one of "us" not long ago. Rather than passing useless "laws" or throwing money at pet projects, she (most recently) temporarily suspended the state gas tax (on gasoline at the pumps, fuel oil and natural gas for homes, etc. And has ordered checks issued to ALL residents of Alaska this fall in an attempt to assist with the burden of high fuel costs for the upcoming winter. I could go on and on, but that's enough for now <smile>. She isn't doing these things to be popular – she is doing it because her constituents are HURTING financially and she can help.
She became Governor of Alaska by defeating the Incumbent Republican Governor and doing it *without* the money or the support of the Republican Party, which was amazing in itself - and she won by a landslide. The "powers that be" at that time totally underestimated Sarah and learned better the hard way. She has done exactly what she claimed she was going to do and is just as popular today as the day she was elected - perhaps more so since even the Democrats up here seem to like her - she works well with both sides in the Legislature here.
Sarah "belongs" to us (Alaskans) and although we are going to be terribly sorry to see her leave before she finishes the job she started here (two years ago) straightening out OUR State <grin>. We understand she is needed for a bigger purpose and hopefully her Lt. Governor will be able to fill her shoes here and continue the job.
As for worrying about what would happen if McCain were to die or step down or whatever. Theta, up here in AK we've only been wondering how long we would be able to KEEP Sarah in Alaska and have seen her as our first woman President of the USA from the start. It's always been a matter of whether she would wait until the end of her TWO terms as Governor (no doubt at ALL that she would be re-elected if she ran for a second term at the end of her current term) or end up in Washington sooner. She could do the job TODAY.
Personally, I feel a lot better about McCain now that I know he has someone as savvy, as strong, as ethical and as steady as Sarah at his back. She will be an excellent Vice President. And my guess is will be our US Republican Presidential candidate in four years - AND by then the country will KNOW her – will love and respect her as we do here - and she'll win by as much of a landslide as she did here in Alaska. I only wonder if McCain has a clue what he is unleashing on the US of A <grin>. She is going to be a fresh wind, but also a strong wind.
Is that enough of an endorsement? If not, I'll add this. Jerry and I have for many years felt the best "vote" was to vote for the lesser of two "evils" and hope they didn't do too much damage. Two years ago during our State Governor's race was the first time EVER that we actually asked for not just a little sign to put in our yard showing our support of our candidate (something we've never felt the desire to do at all before) - we asked for a full 4' x 8' "SARAH PALIN FOR GOVERNOR!" sign and were proud to have it. She hasn't let us or Alaska down. She will do the same for the USA if given the opportunity.
Feel free to pass this on to anyone who may be interested (and spam those who aren't!
-Deb XXXXX in Alaska
While this pick looks stupid since she has MUCH less experience than Obama, which has been about the only thing McCain could attack him on, I think the daughter and husband should not be involved in this. Any and all of her actions, yes. But not the daughter or husband. She has little to no control over other people's actions.
This is an example of what is wrong with our politics-everyone attacks everyone for any possible thing. I think it is absolutely wrong for the media and / or the democrats to attack the daughter or husband, just as I think it is wrong when the Republicans do it. We need to actually require politicians to address issues and their record, not bring up this kind of crap. It avoids the real issues of this country.
Once upon a time the media actually investigated and questioned our politicians and held them up to their promises or questioned when they did not stand for anything.
Suerte.
StoweHi Stowe,
I'll admit my post was pretty heavy handed, but also a little tongue in cheek. You can bet that if a Palin type, and a Palin type family, were added to the Democratic ticket, the Republican assault would be light years worse. It will be interesting to see how the whole Palin thing plays out. I hereby reserve the right to bludgeon this choice of Palin again, no holds barred. You gots to fight fire with fire sometimes.
Suerte-Dogg Limbaugh
No apology is necessary when pointing these things out about Palin and her context. This is a nomination for VP, not of Dogpatch, but the United States of America. There's nothing wrong with stating the obvious, the whole scenario looks like a good start on a screenplay for David Lynch, not the dignity and bearing of a leader of a country with the size and power of the US. All in the service of a cynical ploy by Walnuts trying to grab Hillary Clinton's disaffected supporters.
No apology is necessary when pointing these things out about Palin and her context. This is a nomination for VP, not of Dogpatch, but the United States of America. There's nothing wrong with stating the obvious, the whole scenario looks like a good start on a screenplay for David Lynch, not the dignity and bearing of a leader of a country with the size and power of the US. All in the service of a cynical ploy by Walnuts trying to grab Hillary Clinton's disaffected supporters.Well put. When did Al Bundy move the family to Alaska? Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha! Argh! I just swallowed my reefer.
Question: Who would you rather see tortured at Gitmo next?
Joseph Lieberman or Ralph Nader?
As much as Ralph deserves it, maybe a life time of infamy is enough. Put the battery charger cables on high for Joe (The Weenie) Lieberman.
Sad but true. Obama's bullshit has taken him a long way! An ''ivory tower'' university teacher! Get real! Never had a job in business! An indoctrinated Muslim and ''whitey hater'' from a terrible church. No record of success! In fact, all his past records are secret! I have his acceptance speech---I will read, without witnessing his oratorical skills, to determine if there is anything of value (BA Herald 8-31-08) Then post.C'Mon Sid. I'm guessing somewhere along the line Obama has fucked a white woman. That counts for something don't it?
Hi Stowe-I'll admit my post was pretty heavy handed, but also a little tongue in cheek. You can bet that if a Palin type, and a Palin type family, were added to the Democratic ticket, the Republican assault would be light years worse. It will be interesting to see how the whole Palin thing plays out. I hereby reserve the right to bludgeon this choice of Palin again, no holds barred. You gots to fight fire with fire sometimes.
Suerte-Dogg LimbaughHey DB,
I fully agree with you that the Republicans would be on it like a Pitbull. They invented and perfected the attack method of campaigning. The Dems are amateurs and don't know how to do it like when McCain agreed with a questioner about possibly bringing back the draft, you heard NOTHING from the Dems. And THAT would be a topic to attack on as it is a policy position.
I just think all this distracts from the media actually challenging the candidates-but we will never have that again because the public now wants the attacks.
Suerte.
'Hannity' Stowe
Rock Harders
09-03-08, 01:47
Mongers,
The "experience" factor is being completely overblown here; NOBODY has ever had the relevant experience to be President, except maybe a sitting Vice-President, and even he in most cases is merely a figurehead that does nothing and has marginal influence (Cheney is an exception) Superior Natural intelligence, Ivy-level education, the ability to negotiate / compromise (not falling in love with failed policies / strategies) and an accurate / modern worldview are the most important attributes that a potential president must possess, IMO.
John McCain is an old man and therefore has plenty of "experience", as most 72 year old men do. He managed to crash his way out of the Navy, leave his wife after she was mangled in an accident, and corrupt himself in the Keating 5 scandal. This man turned to politics essentially because he was incompetent as a naval aviator. He only got into the Naval Academy because his father was an Admiral; he graduated in the BOTTOM 5% of his class at Annapolis. I honestly do not believe that John McCain (just like George W. Bush) has the cranial capacity (especially at his age) to be the President of the United States.
Barak Obama, on the other hand, went to Columbia University for undergrad (Political Science, specialized in International Relations) and Harvard Law School (graduated Magna Cum Laude); at Harvard he was President of the Harvard Law Review. He worked as a civil rights attorney, not the most lucrative, but very notable and noble work. In addition, he taught at University Chicago Law School for 12 years, another top notch intellectual institution. This man's intellectual credentials cannot be questioned. He has the educational training to be President, the superior intellect, AND he rose to the position he is in by only his own intelligent and ambition- he came from nothing, a mixed-race broken home.
Suerte,
Rock Harders
2 years in office in one of the smallest states in the Union.Haven't we already been through this in the forum?
Alaska is the LARGEST state in the USA.
Thanks,
Jackson
Haven't we already been through this in the forum?
Alaska is the LARGEST state in the USA.
Thanks,
JacksonJackson,.
You know VERY well that the discussion was regarding population and economy. Stop being obtuse. Perhaps you didn't know, in that case I overestimated your ability to grasp the obvious. In which case, I apologize and pity you.
Suerte.
Stowe
Mongers,
The "experience" factor is being completely overblown here; NOBODY has ever had the relevant experience to be President, except maybe a sitting Vice-President, and even he in most cases is merely a figurehead that does nothing and has marginal influence (Cheney is an exception) Superior Natural intelligence, Ivy-level education, the ability to negotiate / compromise (not falling in love with failed policies / strategies) and an accurate / modern worldview are the most important attributes that a potential president must possess, IMO.
John McCain is an old man and therefore has plenty of "experience", as most 72 year old men do. He managed to crash his way out of the Navy, leave his wife after she was mangled in an accident, and corrupt himself in the Keating 5 scandal. This man turned to politics essentially because he was incompetent as a naval aviator. He only got into the Naval Academy because his father was an Admiral; he graduated in the BOTTOM 5% of his class at Annapolis. I honestly do not believe that John McCain (just like George W. Bush) has the cranial capacity (especially at his age) to be the President of the United States.
Barak Obama, on the other hand, went to Columbia University for undergrad (Political Science, specialized in International Relations) and Harvard Law School (graduated Magna Cum Laude); at Harvard he was President of the Harvard Law Review. He worked as a civil rights attorney, not the most lucrative, but very notable and noble work. In addition, he taught at University Chicago Law School for 12 years, another top notch intellectual institution. This man's intellectual credentials cannot be questioned. He has the educational training to be President, the superior intellect, AND he rose to the position he is in by only his own intelligent and ambition- he came from nothing, a mixed-race broken home.
Suerte,
Rock HardersThis encapsulates the differences between the two perfectly. Well said!
Suerte.
Stowe
Jackson,
You know VERY well that the discussion was regarding population and economy. Stop being obtuse. Perhaps you didn't know, in that case I overestimated your ability to grasp the obvious. In which case, I apologize and pity you.
Suerte.
StoweYou've hurt my feelings!
You've hurt my feelings!Gee, I am soooo sorry, but we are all big boys here and I am sure you will recover. After all, it's only personal-from the past, so to speak.
Suerte.
Stowe
Originally Posted by Jackson.
You've hurt my feelings!
Gee, I am soooo sorry, but we are all big boys here and I am sure you will recover. After all, it's only personal-from the past, so to speak.
Suerte.
StoweThe population of Alaska is estimated to be slightly larger than Bhutan @ 670,000 souls. Less than the population of Fort Worth, Texas.
Sydney, old sport,
You have the most boring posts I've seen on this board, ever. Unfortunately they're the size of billboards and get in the way of reading the interesting ones. Give it a rest, please.
HairBalderman
09-05-08, 03:24
The George W. Bush Presidential Library is now in the planning stages.
The Library will include:
The Hurricane Katrina Room, which is still under construction.
The Alberto Gonzales Room, where you won't be able to remember anything.
The Texas Air National Guard Room, where you don't even have to show up.
The Walter Reed Hospital Room, where they don't let you in.
The Guantanamo Bay Room, where they don't let you out.
The Weapons of Mass Destruction Room, which no one has been able to find.
The National Debt room, which is huge and has no ceiling.
The Tax Cut Room, with entry only to the wealthy.
The Economy Room, which is in the toilet.
The Iraq War Room. After you complete your first tour, they make you go back for a second, third, fourth, and sometimes fifth tour.
The Dick Cheney Room, in an undisclosed location, complete with shotgun gallery.
The Environmental Conservation Room, still empty.
The Supremes Gift Shop, where you can buy an election.
The Airport Men's Room, where you can meet some of your favorite Republican Senators.
The 'Decider Room', complete with dart board, magic 8-ball, Ouija board, dice, coins, and straws.
Admission: Republicans - free; Democrats - $1000 or 3 Euros
I understand that this news will be somewhat of a disappointment to some members, but here it is:
George Bush is not running for President.
Thanks,
Jackson
The George W. Bush Presidential Library is now in the planning stages.
The Library will include:
The Hurricane Katrina Room, which is still under construction.
The Alberto Gonzales Room, where you won't be able to remember anything.
The Texas Air National Guard Room, where you don't even have to show up.
The Walter Reed Hospital Room, where they don't let you in.
The Guantanamo Bay Room, where they don't let you out.
The Weapons of Mass Destruction Room, which no one has been able to find.
The National Debt room, which is huge and has no ceiling.
The Tax Cut Room, with entry only to the wealthy.
The Economy Room, which is in the toilet.
The Iraq War Room. After you complete your first tour, they make you go back for a second, third, fourth, and sometimes fifth tour.
The Dick Cheney Room, in an undisclosed location, complete with shotgun gallery.
The Environmental Conservation Room, still empty.
The Supremes Gift Shop, where you can buy an election.
The Airport Men's Room, where you can meet some of your favorite Republican Senators.
The 'Decider Room', complete with dart board, magic 8-ball, Ouija board, dice, coins, and straws.
Admission: Republicans - free; Democrats - $1000 or 3 Euros
Why could not Mrs Clinton get the ticket?
Just on the back of her husband who probably has.
Been the best leader in modern times for the US.
The scaring thing in the US, is that the country has.
The longest selection process with the lowest turnout.
Of voters in any western democratic country.
If it gets up to 60 per cent it is a success.
Scaring!
Why could not Mrs Clinton get the ticket?
Just on the back of her husband who probably has.
Been the best leader in modern times for the US.
The scaring thing in the US, is that the country has.
The longest selection process with the lowest turnout.
Of voters in any western democratic country.
If it gets up to 60 per cent it is a success.
Scaring!This is just my surmise but somewhere in the 70's the fabric that was America's sense of identity started to loosen. The linchpins of local and regional or state identities started to fade away. Television took over, sports went from real, local teams to groups of players who are only associated because they play for stupid amounts of money. Self owned businesses turned into corporations and eventually became run purely for profit without commitments to the people who worked there, the regions or consequences of their actions on the country they were based in. Marketing and merchandising and television saturated people's lives with consumption and television provided diversion after diversion. Ordinary americans became wealthy relative to the rest of the world and indolent and apathetic. Their children even more so. The foundations of the country and it's principles and a sense of history started to disappear from people's consciousness. The military became a volunteer army and they abolished the draft. Political action and wars asked nothing of the guy on the street. Most recently the news media which is supposed to provide balanced information to keep Americans informed has been transformed in some areas into political tools and hard information is sometimes turned into entertainment blurring the lines between fact and fantasy. Americans live in a bubble in a country so large they have little sense or interest in people and countries outside. Inside the country because the infrastructure is so amorphous and people are so insolated there's less to give people a sense of community and a reason to vote.
It's a dark view and I'm sure there are a thousand exceptions but it's my read on why American's are not as participatory when it comes to minding the country's business.
And yes, Bill Clinton was a great leader with an Achille's heel, but it didn't translate to his wife enough to put her into the White House.
This is just my surmise but somewhere in the 70's the fabric that was America's sense of identity started to loosen. The linchpins of local and regional or state identities started to fade away. Television took over, sports went from real, local teams to groups of players who are only associated because they play for stupid amounts of money. Self owned businesses turned into corporations and eventually became run purely for profit without commitments to the people who worked there, the regions or consequences of their actions on the country they were based in. Marketing and merchandising and television saturated people's lives with consumption and television provided diversion after diversion. Ordinary americans became wealthy relative to the rest of the world and indolent and apathetic. Their children even more so. The foundations of the country and it's principles and a sense of history started to disappear from people's consciousness. The military became a volunteer army and they abolished the draft. Political action and wars asked nothing of the guy on the street. Most recently the news media which is supposed to provide balanced information to keep Americans informed has been transformed in some areas into political tools and hard information is sometimes turned into entertainment blurring the lines between fact and fantasy. Americans live in a bubble in a country so large they have little sense or interest in people and countries outside. Inside the country because the infrastructure is so amorphous and people are so insolated there's less to give people a sense of community and a reason to vote.
It's a dark view and I'm sure there are a thousand exceptions but it's my read on why American's are not as participatory when it comes to minding the country's business.
And yes, Bill Clinton was a great leader with an Achille's heel, but it didn't translate to his wife enough to put her into the White House.The nail hit squarely on the head! IMHO.
I understand that this news will be somewhat of a disappointment to some members, but here it is:
George Bush is not running for President.
Thanks,
JacksonVery true but his clone is!
McCain must know how healthy George Bush's colon is because he has had his head up Bush's ass constantly since last year:-) hehe.
Suerte.
Stowe
Very true but his clone is!
McCain must know how healthy George Bush's colon is because he has had his head up Bush's ass constantly since last year:-) hehe.
Suerte.
StoweAND, he didn't suck Jerry Falwell's dick, but he WOULD have.
As Bush gets ready to leave office, I think it's important we consider his many accomplishments:
1) Creating the stupidest war since the Spanish-American War.
2) Running the economy into the toilet.
3) Increasing unemployment to mid-term record levels.
4) Eroding basic civil and privacy rights.
5) Running the dollar into the toilet.
6) Lying, weaseling, evading responsibility, and also did I mention weaseling?
I forget what else. Oh yeah, having his drunken slutty daughters come to Buenos Aires.
But that's just the bad stuff. On the positive side he, umm, he umm,
Help me out here.
"Vote Obama: Half Honky, All Donkey"
HairBalderman
09-06-08, 04:48
I understand that this news will be somewhat of a disappointment to some members, but here it is:
George Bush is not running for President.
Thanks,
JacksonWith all due respect, Jackson, my post suggests nothing about Bush running for president. It does, however, suggest what an awful mess he has made of our country. And, yes, I do squarely place the blame for this on his shoulders and the shoulders of the cabal he brought to the executive branch of our government. It goes way beyond Republican indifference for those who can't "pull themselves up by their bootstraps". It goes to the core of what it means to be American. You know what I'm talking about - those little things like the US Constitution, small ideas like personal freedom, and the notion that we the people in order to form a perfect union are the ones who govern our country. So keep waving the Stars and Stripes in Buenos Aires, Jackson, while we who actually live in the United States of America have to deal with the subtle fascism that has crept into the landscape on a daily basis, thanks in a very large way to GW Bush and eight years of the WORST PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY.
Gato Hunter
09-06-08, 06:18
Oh yeah, having his drunken slutty daughters come to Buenos Aires.And she got her purse stolen in San Telmo under Secret Service protection while she was having lunch.
Karma is a female dog.
With all due respect, Jackson, my post suggests nothing about Bush running for president. It does, however, suggest what an awful mess he has made of our country. And, yes, I do squarely place the blame for this on his shoulders and the shoulders of the cabal he brought to the executive branch of our government. It goes way beyond Republican indifference for those who can't "pull themselves up by their bootstraps". It goes to the core of what it means to be American. You know what I'm talking about - those little things like the US Constitution, small ideas like personal freedom, and the notion that we the people in order to form a perfect union are the ones who govern our country. So keep waving the Stars and Stripes in Buenos Aires, Jackson, while we who actually live in the United States of America have to deal with the subtle fascism that has crept into the landscape on a daily basis, thanks in a very large way to GW Bush and eight years of the WORST PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY.Hi HairBalderman,
I disagree completely, and I believe that history will show that George Bush did what had to be done without regard to it's immediate popularity. For example, Bush knew that for our own defense we needed to take the fight to Al Queda by invading a country directly in the middle of their hornet's nest, effectively sticking a finger right up their ass.
Of course, you can't acknowledge that your strategy was to use another country as a battleground in your own war, so you disguise it as a liberation. The net effect is that you create a magnet for the rabid dogs, luring them into fighting our army on foreign soil, thus keeping them occupied and deflecting their attention from attacking our homeland.
Bush knew that the invasion that was needed to cover the real strategy would prove to be politically unpopular, but he did it because it need to be done. Of course, there's nothing to be ashamed about having liberated 36 million people from the subjugation of a homicidal maniac, and for having brought democracy to a country and a region, but it will take 10 to 20 years before people understand that it was the correct thing to do.
Thanks,
Jackson
Hi HairBalderman,
I disagree completely, and I believe that history will show that George Bush did what had to be done without regard to it's immediate popularity. For example, Bush knew that for our own defense we needed to take the fight to Al Queda by invading a country directly in the middle of their hornet's nest, effectively sticking a finger right up their ass.
Of course, you can't acknowledge that your strategy was to use another country as a battleground in your own war, so you disguise it as a liberation. The net effect is that you create a magnet for the rabid dogs, seducing them into fighting our army on foreign soil, thus deflecting their attention from attacking our homeland.
Bush knew that the invasion that was needed to cover the strategy would prove to be politically unpopular, but he did it because it need to be done.
Thanks,
JacksonJackson,
By making people believe that terrorism could be fought by conventional military means, neocons succeed into approving huge military budgets for defense sector companies, which in turn contribute to political campaigns and pay salaries of retired politicians who become defense sector lobbyists.
Meanwhile, the "we live in a dangerous World" hysteria, along with strong support from mainstream media, help approve laws that limit civil rights and privacy and neutralize opposition to current military policies.
Both things help to convince people that you can destroy Al Qaeda by sending troops to Afghanistan and Iraq, but anyone who takes 1 or 2 hours to honestly research about this issue from different sources learns quickly that terrorism can only be fought using intelligence and police forces, not by military means.
9-11 could have been prevented simply by setting International security standards to American airports. I remember having greeted 2 friends at Logan airport a few months before 9-11 right at the plane's gate (he same airport where 2 of the involved 4 planes took off on 9-11) Too easy to get to the plane without strict checking, something I had never seen before at Ezeiza or Barajas, for instance.
10 years from now, when all the dust from the Iraq ad Afghan wars be settled, it will be painfully clear that the US wouldn't be neither safer or unsafer from a terrorist point of view than at 2001. What will be certain is that Boeing, General Dynamics and the such, and above all the financial groups that own many of them (such as the Carlyle Group) will have amassed huge profits thanks to that perfectly planned hysteria, profits comming from public expenditures that will not have been invested in education and health, two areas in which the US has a lot of room for improvement (and the baby boomer retirement wave is just around the corner, something that will severely impact health costs)
All of the above assuming that the US will at least succeed into controlling Iraq and Afghanistan, something I'm very doubtful it will happen taking into account the state of things and how they evolved (stall in Iraq and degrading situation in Afg, not to mention the incapability of facing Russia against Georgia, another clear example of how amateurish is the Bush admin into playing the International geopolitics chess even after 8 year experience in power)
Finally, I'm afraid that the 8-year Bush tenure in power has become such a financial failure for public accounts (commercial and budgetary) that only by chance the US will return to the January 2000 figures.
Time will say what will be the Bush Jr contribution to US advancement. I believe that history will be very harsh with him and the neocons.
Thanks,
Andres
In many ways, these Liberal Dreamers are so similar----oratorical skills, youth, attractive wife, the best schools, ''great'' new ideas, etc. And most importantly, incredible BULLSHIT! I / we, the youth of the time, were totally ''enraptured'' with JFK. But with much with study and listening to many older wiser, experienced men of the day, I began to realize my earlier, youthful foolishness. And I voted against JFK. But JFK was elected. He became one of the worst Presidents of our lifetimes. How short are our memories? Now, comes Obomba (sic) with many, many, many more deficiencies than JFK, and the people are so excited with his oratorical skills and BULLSHIT! God, help us if he is elected! ---------Depressed SidDon't fret "Depressed Sid"! My guess is that Obama is pretty much part of the "machine" as anybody else. It is impossible to get elected if one is not. While he won't be as beholding to to some of the same special interests as the Bushies, he will still have to answer to others. Changes will be moderate in nature and not earth shattering. For all the talk about how "liberal" he is, his background is one of pragmatism and compromise. I would be satisfied if he got rid of the designated hitter rule, loosened up the travel restrictions to Cuba and had Scalia quarrentined. Anything else would be gravy.
"Unlike Senator Obama, my admiration, respect and deep gratitude for America's veterans is something more than a convenient campaign pledge."
Except of course when it comes to voting yes on a bill that would allow them to build a better life after their service to our country. I will show my gratitude by making it harder for them to get an education thereby limiting their options and continuing to serve?
Oh yes and don't forget extending enlistments. I am so grateful to them for their service that we will extend their term of service beyond what they contracted for, can't you see we love these fine young men and women and their hillbilly armor.McCain's reason for originally supporting a competing bill was simple, and based on the idea of an all-volunteer military: If you make it very lucrative for a soldier to leave the service, he will. The military needs to keep some of its enlistees to form the basis for a permanent standing force. A proper balance has to be struck between appropriate educational benefits and a professional army. Reasonable men can disagree on this, as Senators Webb and McCain did, and without partisan rancor much to the credit of those two men. I find it unfortunate that the Obama campaign needed to turn this into a ludicrous personal attack on the only man in the race who has ever truly fought for me.
And as for that contract business, every contract I ever signed (along with all my peers) has language in it that means I am in it for the duration if the needs of the service demand it. Enlisting in the military is not the same thing as signing on to be an independent contractor for a business.
"10 years from now, when all the dust from the Iraq ad Afghan wars be settled, it will be painfully clear that the US wouldn't be neither safer or unsafer from a terrorist point of view than at 2001."As somebody whose hometown was actually attacked on that day, I remember not only the black smoke rising over everything, but also that everyone agreed that it was only a matter of days/weeks/months until the enemy would make similar spectacular attacks.
It has been no coincidence that there have been no further attacks in the US. It is only because the US government, led by the man the left hates so much, has worked tirelessly to destroy terrorists where ever they are. Harry S Truman was also hated by many small-minded people when he left office in 1953; his "popularity ratings" were similar to the current President. How has history treated HST?
blah blah blah "will have amassed huge profits thanks to that perfectly planned hysteria"When somebody tries to kill me and my countrymen or make us convert to Fundamentalist Islam as part of a Worldwide Caliphate under the control of Muslim imams, it's not "perfectly planned hysteria." It's called war.
Finally, I'm afraid that the 8-year Bush tenure in power has become such a financial failure for public accounts (commercial and budgetary) that only by chance the US will return to the January 2000 figures.Somebody from Argentina, of all places, should think twice before writing about how bad America's economy is. 60 years ago Argentina was one of the wealthiest countries in the world. How does it compare now? Perhaps yet another multi-billion dollar handout/rescue plan from the United States coming soon? Maybe that will get Argentina back into the Top 50! (Don't worry, Argentina is still ahead of Paraguay. A little. ;) )
Hi HairBalderman,
I disagree completely, and I believe that history will show that George Bush did what had to be done without regard to it's immediate popularity. For example, Bush knew that for our own defense we needed to take the fight to Al Queda by invading a country directly in the middle of their hornet's nest, effectively sticking a finger right up their ass.
Of course, you can't acknowledge that your strategy was to use another country as a battleground in your own war, so you disguise it as a liberation. The net effect is that you create a magnet for the rabid dogs, luring them into fighting our army on foreign soil, thus keeping them occupied and deflecting their attention from attacking our homeland.
Bush knew that the invasion that was needed to cover the real strategy would prove to be politically unpopular, but he did it because it need to be done. Of course, there's nothing to be ashamed about having liberated 36 million people from the subjugation of a homicidal maniac, and for having brought democracy to a country and a region, but it will take 10 to 20 years before people understand that it was the correct thing to do.
Thanks,
JacksonI'm sure there is or will be shortly a 7 Step Program for recovering Republicans. One of the steps has to be Overcoming Denial. This ranks right up there with Elvis sightings, believing in Santa Claus and accounts of Martian Invasion sightings on page 8 of the New York Post. George Bush, Secret Man of Vision. ROTFL if it wasn't so tragic. The 650,000 plus Iraqi who died since the US invasion would be clapping their hands too if they weren't dead from being "liberated".
From personal experience and observing other young Black men in GA, I must suspect that Obomba (sic) was ''given'' much of the same treatment and privileges and treatment all through his schooling!---Not impressed, SidSydney, old sport, Good to see you posting your own thoughts instead of someone else's. So all this venom about Obama comes through your own personal experience with black people in Georgia of all places and your suspicion that Obama might of been given special privileges because he was black. Not knowledge mind you but "suspect". I think you've got a dog in this hunt and it's called racism. What do you think Syd?
I think you've got a dog in this hunt and it's called racism. What do you think Syd?If you actually knew Sidney as well as I do, you would be laughing at your own stupidity in making that comment, B9.
As somebody whose hometown was actually attacked on that day, I remember not only the black smoke rising over everything.
When somebody tries to kill me and my countrymen or make us convert to Fundamentalist Islam as part of a Worldwide Caliphate under the control of Muslim imams, it's not "perfectly planned hysteria." It's called war.
Somebody from Argentina, of all places, should think twice before writing about how bad America's economy is. 60 years ago Argentina was one of the wealthiest countries in the world. How does it compare now? Perhaps yet another multi-billion dollar handout / rescue plan from the United States coming soon? Maybe that will get Argentina back into the Top 50! (Don't worry, Argentina is still ahead of Paraguay. A little.;))Hunt, the smoke looked more grey to me that day. Maybe it was just where I was standing.
I think Andres meant the "perfectly planned hysteria" that came after you'd been killed and converted to Fundamentalist Islam as part of a Worldwide Caliphate under the control of Muslim Imams. You know after Bush declared victory on that ship the Navy floated off the California beaches for him so he'd look good.
How very Republican of you to try to belittle Andres for speaking about the obvious state of the US economy. Nothing to say about his mother or sister? Come on man, don't hold back, you're a Republican.
If you actually knew Sidney as well as I do, you would be laughing at your own stupidity in making that comment, B9.When you're too close to something Hunt you can't see the forest for the trees.
As Bush gets ready to leave office, I think it's important we consider his many accomplishments:
1) Creating the stupidest war since the Spanish-American War.
2) Running the economy into the toilet.
3) Increasing unemployment to mid-term record levels.
4) Eroding basic civil and privacy rights.
5) Running the dollar into the toilet.
6) Lying, weaseling, evading responsibility, and also did I mention weaseling?
I forget what else. Oh yeah, having his drunken slutty daughters come to Buenos Aires.
But that's just the bad stuff. On the positive side he, umm, he umm,
Help me out here.
"Vote Obama: Half Honky, All Donkey"Like the 'half honky, all donkey quote.
#8 - Throwing the constitution in the toilet by violating any and all civil liberties he could.
Suerte.
Stowe
Don't fret "Depressed Sid"! My guess is that Obama is pretty much part of the "machine" as anybody else. It is impossible to get elected if one is not. While he won't be as beholding to to some of the same special interests as the Bushies, he will still have to answer to others. Changes will be moderate in nature and not earth shattering. For all the talk about how "liberal" he is, his background is one of pragmatism and compromise. I would be satisfied if he got rid of the designated hitter rule, loosened up the travel restrictions to Cuba and had Scalia quarrentined. Anything else would be gravy.Doggboy,
Very, very sad but unfortunately, probably very true. Neither party has the balls to discuss AND fix the real problems in this country. The nation debt, social security (keep it but increase taxes AND a gradual reduction of benefits) medicare, global warming, the energy problem.
If we were still a "can-do" country we could solve the energy problem within 15 years. If we devoted the talent and money to it as we did the Manhattan and Apollo projects. Solar, wind and fuel cell technology could be prefected within 15 years if the amount of money and research spent on the other 2 projects were done to solve this issue.
T Boone Picken's plan would be a step in that direction until we could perfect the other options.
But we are no longer a 'can-do' country. All politicians talk about, when they are not making lying promises to us, are the issues that inflame.
IMHO.
Suerte.
Stowe
FYI - suicides of military personal is at an all time high with no end in sight-even higher (per capita) than all other wars.
Another Bush success.
Suerte.
Stowe
I agree, and T Boone Pickens even makes that point, that his idea is only a temporary solution but it will give us time. We have enough natural gas to supply all transportation (trucks, cars, trains, etc) for at least 50 years.
Over the next 10 years the US economy will send $7 trillion dollars to the oil countries-($700 million a year based on last year's number)
Extremely frightning! All our wealth is leaving us and going there and we are funding the terrorists. Without that money their ability to wage war would be massively impacted.
Suerte.
Stowe.
Picken's claims that 30% of the gasoline and diesel is used by trucks. He says the entire fleet could be converted to natural gas in 3 years! Obviously, a very helpful partial solution to our foreign dependence!
Have a look at Sarah (apallin') Palin, past and present. God help her if the McCain handlers ever allow her to speak to the press, not even Fox News could protect her on this history. Gentlemen, don your protective cups while you still own a pair.
http://www.laprogressive.com/2008/09/05/alaskans-speak-in-a-frightened-whisper-palin-is-%E2%80%9Cracist-sexist-vindictive-and-mean%E2%80%9D/#more-954
http://www.laprogressive.com/2008/09/03/about-sarah-palin/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122065537792905483.html
Utter stupidity! I picked, helped, and assisted a young Black man, at a large Midwestern University, 1961, into University office when you were a child!Hate to upset another suspicion but I'd been off the tit a few years at that point.
So you learned your lesson about helping "Black" men and now you're evening the score on Barack Obama?
Rock Harders
09-06-08, 18:54
Mongers,
I know Sidney personally and I can give him a full pass on the race card- he is definitely NOT a racist, in fact he is totally obsessed and addicted to women of color. He gets a huge hard on when anybody even talks about a chica from the DR, Haiti, or Cuba. I have a sneaking suspicion that Sidney's diehard opposition to all things Obama has much more to do with the inevitable tax increase that gentlemen of Sidney's tax bracket will get hit with than anything else. Sidney and others are afraid of the unknown, they have prospered under the current system and they know that McCain will continue on with the current system.
Suerte,
Rock Harders
As somebody whose hometown was actually attacked on that day, I remember not only the black smoke rising over everything, but also that everyone agreed that it was only a matter of days / weeks / months until the enemy would make similar spectacular attacks.
It has been no coincidence that there have been no further attacks in the US. It is only because the US government, led by the man the left hates so much, has worked tirelessly to destroy terrorists where ever they are. Harry S Truman was also hated by many small-minded people when he left office in 1953; his "popularity ratings" were similar to the current President. How has history treated HST?There weren't no attacks BEFORE, neither. Also, as I mentioned, you only need to strengthen airport security, not to spend billions of Dollars in military equipment.
When somebody tries to kill me and my countrymen or make us convert to Fundamentalist Islam as part of a Worldwide Caliphate under the control of Muslim imams, it's not "perfectly planned hysteria." It's called war.Worldwide caliphate? Where this idea comes from?
Hysteria helped Bush tremendously. These days, the dot-com crash was taking its toll and the administration didn't have any clue of how to get out of it. 9-11 was blessing for the administration. Kind of "Wag the dog".
Somebody from Argentina, of all places, should think twice before writing about how bad America's economy is. 60 years ago Argentina was one of the wealthiest countries in the world. How does it compare now? Perhaps yet another multi-billion dollar handout / rescue plan from the United States coming soon? Maybe that will get Argentina back into the Top 50! (Don't worry, Argentina is still ahead of Paraguay. A little.;))How well or bad Argentina is doing has nothing to do with the US economy. You are bringing it to divert from the discussion, because it's undisputable that the US economy today (specially regarding USD value, trade deficit and such, not mentioning its financial system health) leave a lot to be desired.
Anyway, if you want to praise Bush, it's your call.
Thanks,
Andres
FYI - suicides of military personal is at an all time high with no end in sight-even higher (per capita) than all other wars.
Another Bush success.
Suerte.
StoweHi Stowe,
1. The rate is still lower than the rate for the general public.
2. What exactly is it that you believe the President failed to do that caused this increase?
Thanks,
Jackson
This true for most all people. The exception--don't lend money to your friends! I see that you didn't deny being an Eastern Elitist like my friend Rock Harders!I acknowledge your candor on your twisted thinking but it doesn't exonerate your diatribes against a smart, capable, young politician with actual ideas about how to lead the way forward for the US. He's achieved a lot, run a hell of an organization and beat out the most powerful elements in the Democratic party.
I don't know what an Eastern Elitist is and I doubt you do either. Just another cheap shot that serves no purpose other than to obscure the real issues by attacking and trying to make the issue the individual. A good thing to say if you're trolling for votes from people with low education and working class mentality.
StrayLight
09-06-08, 22:19
It has been no coincidence that there have been no further attacks in the US.No, probably not a coincidence. If you were to read what Osama bin Laden said before 9/11, or watched some of his early videos, you'd find that he more than achieved his goal with the 9/11 attacks. The idea was to provoke the U. S. into doing exactly what we did: to over react.
And over react we did. Big time.
With only 19 men and about $50,000, he provoked us into starting a war that by some estimates will cost over a trillion dollars...that to date has cost more U. S. lives than 9/11 did (not to mention the lifelong injuries)..and that has drastically reduced our military and diplomatic clout.
No, it's probably no coincidence at all that there have been no further attacks. From OBL's point of view, why spend any more than you have to when you're getting such sterling results as it is?
No, probably not a coincidence. If you were to read what Osama bin Laden said before 9/11, or watched some of his early videos, you'd find that he more than achieved his goal with the 9/11 attacks. The idea was to provoke the U. S. Into doing exactly what we did: to overreact.Overreact - did you say overreact? I'm quite sure you don't want us to buy the notion that 8 years of killing and maiming is just a price to be paid. It is obvious that you and the other left-wing contributors to this thread did not have a loved one killed or injured in any of the events listed below. But recall, the Nairobi and Dar es Salaam events killed mostly black people - and they "don't count" when it is not convenient for the left. Continue to wave the banner of Iraq war deaths - as you use them, remember they volunteered their service and lives to the country. The people listed below did not have that choice (except the Marines in Khobar)
1993- Clinton - World Trade Center 1st bombing.
1994- Clinton - BsAs bombing #2
1996- Clinton - Khobar towers.
1998- Clinton - Nairobi US Embassy.
1998- Clinton - Dar es Salaam US Embassy.
2000- Clinton - USS Cole attacked.
2001- Bush"2"- Asleep at the switch - WTC 2nd attack.
I'm so happy to see that when the USA enjoyed the eight years of America's first "Black President" - the world was a much kinder and gentler place. You folks may believe that Clinton and Madeleine Albright were the answer to global terrorism and the Balkans - I do not.
Jackson,
"The rate is still lower then the general public". I guess that is a good way to justify it.
Having said that I am not sure where you got that info as I have just googled that info and the suicide rate for the US is 1.3% and the suicide rate for the military (as of 5/29/2008) is 1.9%. I think that means your claim is incorrect.
Regarding question #2
It is not what he failed to do, it is what he did. The cause is obvious but you and I have a definite difference of opinion on this. If we had not invaded another sovereign nation, one that did not attack us (Iraq) this might be a moot discussion. You have posted that we invaded Iraq to thwart terrorism but that was not the first or even the second reason Bush claimed we needed to invade.
His first was that they had nukes.
When none were found, he then stated we invaded because they did not adhere to the United Nations agreement. I find that hypocritical since Bush does not believe in the UN so he only uses the UN when it benefits him. Now before you challenge me on that claim, let me point out one, of perhaps many examples that Bush does not believe in the UN. The UN voted against his invasion of Iraq and he ignored them.
Can't have it both ways.
Having said all that I do believe we were justified in going into Afghanistan but we left too soon (to invade Iraq) and didn't finish the job-now we have a mess there as we lost control.
My ultimate belief is that no matter what we do or how long we stay it will never end. The Israelis and muslims have been fighting for 2000 years. I prefer to get out before the economy of this country collapses.
I say get out, stop trying to control and / or manipulate other countries, get our military out of the 80 or so countries we have them in and they (oil countries primarily) can all go fuck themselves.
I truly believe that part of the hatred for the US is because we have done all those things-the world is afraid of empires and want them to fail. The American attempt at empire (militarily and economically) is no exception.
Just my opinion. That's all folks! For now, that is. This is a damned interesting series of postings, though. I love it!!
Ciao why Suerte.
Stowe.
Hi Stowe,
1. The rate is still lower than the rate for the general public.
2. What exactly is it that you believe the President failed to do that caused this increase?
Thanks,
Jackson
No, probably not a coincidence. If you were to read what Osama bin Laden said before 9/11, or watched some of his early videos, you'd find that he more than achieved his goal with the 9/11 attacks. The idea was to provoke the U. S. Into doing exactly what we did: to overreact.
And we did. Big time.
With only 19 men and about $50,000, he provoked us into starting a war that by some estimates will cost over a trillion dollars. That to date has cost more U. S. Lives than 9/11 did (not to mention the lifelong injuries) and that has drastically reduced our military and diplomatic clout.
No, it's probably no coincidence at all that there have been no further attacks. From OBL's point of view, why spend any more than you have to when you're getting such sterling results as it is?There is truth to this as Al Queda (sp? Bragged about bankrupting the Soviet Union with their war in Afghanistan and stated after 911 that that was one of their goals for the US. Which is not implausible.
Suerte.
Stowe
StrayLight
09-07-08, 00:34
It is obvious that you and the other left-wing contributors to this thread did not have a loved one killed or injured in any of the events listed below."Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent." -Wittgenstein, Proposition 7, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.
Dude, that's a polite way of saying that when you don't know what you're talking about, you should really keep you mouth shut.
The fact is, I was assigned to and working at the Pentagon the day of the 9/11 attacks. I just happened to be home from work that day. (Not that I would have necessarily gotten killed, but my two-star boss would have gotten killed had he not been on travel that week. And of course I knew people who died there.)
When the Cole was bombed, I almost went back to Yemen to help with the investigation and such because of certain expertise I had. I say "back" to Yemen because...
...when the east African embassies were bombed, I was stationed in the Persian Gulf as a Commanding Officer and had OPCON of some of the forces involved in the aftermath.
In April, 1983 when the U. S. Embassy in Beirut was bombed, I was on the scene in minutes. I knew several people who died, and I helped pick body parts out of the rubble over the next two weeks. Six months later, when the Marine barracks was bombed, I again knew several people who died.
So please don't yap about my supposed lack of knowledge or whatever regarding America's suicide bombings. I seriously doubt you could catch up to me in first-hand knowledge of terrorism and suicide bombings, even if you spent the rest of your life trying.
And yes, dude, we over reacted to 9/11. Invading Iraq was a huge, huge mistake. It had nothing to do with the task at hand, which was strangling Al Qaeda and killing off the roots that support it. Luckily that task falls in large part on the Special Operations community, and those guys were able to use Iraq as an advanced training ground for what they do and then apply the lessons elsewhere, where they matter. But make no mistake: we took our eye off the ball and squandered huge amounts of our national treasure and blood for a misconceived adventure...just like bin Laden said he wanted to provoke us into doing.
It is obvious that you and the other left-wing contributors to this thread did not have a loved one killed or injured in any of the events listed below.Alan,
In the past you have maintained a certain level of courteous discourse with those who's point of view did not match your own. This BS comment from you was so ignorant that I am really surprised.
This comment just substantiates the right wing mentality that conservatives like yourself think liberals are traitors just because they have a different POV. That is BS. I am more liberal than not and I DID have a close family member SERIOUSLY injured in the Iraq war-he was in the Marines and was ambushed! Did you? If you didn't than you are a hypocrite and should just pass up commenting!
If liberals had that type of mentality they / we would think all conservatives are nothing but Nazi loving skinheads-who want to live in a dictatorship. We don't--at least I do not. I respect the opinion of the other side without slanderously MIS-labeling them.
Suerte.
Stowe
Daddy Rulz
09-07-08, 02:54
1993- Clinton - World Trade Center 1st bombing.
1994- Clinton - BsAs bombing #2
1996- Clinton - Khobar towers.
1998- Clinton - Nairobi US Embassy.
1998- Clinton - Dar es Salaam US Embassy.
2000- Clinton - USS Cole attacked.I don't know but do all of these add up to the 4155 US Servicemen confirmed dead in Iraq? (DOD figure)
Punter 127
09-07-08, 06:04
I don't know but do all of these add up to the 4155 US Servicemen confirmed dead in Iraq? (DOD figure)Come on DR with that kind of thinking we would have surrendered to the Japanese on December the 8th 1941, the day after Pearl Harbor was attacked.
The loss of any life is unfortunate but how does 4155 compare with other wars, here's just an example;
In April and May 1944, the Allied air forces lost nearly 12,000 men and over 2,000 aircraft in operations which paved the way for D-Day.
Total Allied casualties on D-Day are estimated at 10,000, including 2500 dead. British casualties on D-Day have been estimated at approximately 2700. The Canadians lost 946 casualties. The US forces lost 6603 men.The point is how many times do you let someone hit you in the nose before you hit them back?
Come on DR with that kind of thinking we would have surrendered to the Japanese on December the 8th 1941, the day after Pearl Harbor was attacked.
The loss of any life is unfortunate but how does 4155 compare with other wars, here's just an example; The point is how many times do you let someone hit you in the nose before you hit them back?Hey Punter. I don't think you would find many of the left leaning mongers advocating a hands off approach with Al Qaeda. Certainly not me. My beef, and I think the beef of many, has been with the monumentally flawed strategy employed by the Bush administration. Lest we forget, there were NO Al Qaeda in Iraq prior to our invasion, and there was an historical enmity between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Tracking down Al Qaeda in Afghanistan is one thing (another effort botched by the way) but the decision to invade Iraq led to much head scratching by many in the USA, and as we know, by many countries who heretofore been our staunch allies. So, there began much discussion as to what the REAL agenda of the USA was-oil, establishing a permanent base, or just what exactly? And, a definitive answer has yet to come forth. Remember, the Bush administration's reasons have changed considerably since they initially floated the WMD rationale, and there is much compelling evidence that alot of the WMD "evidence" was contrived.
No sense here in going into the myriad negative and damaging repercussions of the ill fated decision to invade Iraq. It is a long and ugly list, from clearly flaunting the Geneva Convention, creating more, not less, turmoil in the Middle East (including a huge boost to Al Qaeda's recruitment efforts) damaging our economy dramatically, creating confusion and concern amongst our allies, and too many others for me to dredge up on this Sunday morning. Suffice to say, to my way of thinking, a comprehensive screwing of the pooch, perpetrated by people who have still not come clean as to what the actual misguided agenda might have been.
Daddy Rulz
09-07-08, 13:30
Come on DR with that kind of thinking we would have surrendered to the Japanese on December the 8th 1941, the day after Pearl Harbor was attacked.
The loss of any life is unfortunate but how does 4155 compare with other wars, here's just an example; The point is how many times do you let someone hit you in the nose before you hit them back?Good puppy.
My turn to bite the hillbilly. Saddam didn't attack Pearl, may God keep the men and women that perished that day. The Taliban on the other hand fo show fo show had a hand in the destruction of the towers.
Punching Saddam in the face over the events of 9-11 would be like me punching Coach because you punched me and he saw it on TV and said it was a good idea. Now everybody who knows him knows Coach is a rotten coksuker and needs punching. But when he hauls me in front of the judge for punching him and I explain thus "Well your honor, the hillbilly punched me and Coach said he thought it was a good idea and I was afraid Coach might punch me too because he has fists so I punched him first. It was self defense." All the judge is gonna say is "What in the fuck are you talking about numbnuts that boy ain't even got hands?" "Thirty days in county."
I don't know but do all of these add up to the 4155 US Servicemen confirmed dead in Iraq? (DOD figure)At least these personal sacrifices were made in a campaign that produced results, specifically: A despot removed from office, the liberation of 36 million formerly oppressed people, Al Qaeda beaten to a pulp, and the creation of a new democratic country to counter-balance Iran.
Thanks,
Jackson
Jackson,
"The rate is still lower then the general public". I guess that is a good way to justify it.
Having said that I am not sure where you got that info as I have just googled that info and the suicide rate for the US is 1.3% and the suicide rate for the military (as of 5/29/2008) is 1.9%. I think that means your claim is incorrect.Hi Stowe,
I'm not trying to "justify it", I'm just putting it in context. The fact is that our military personnel, despite being subjected to the horrors of combat, are still measurably more emotionally balanced that the average citizen. This certainly is to their credit, and I believe that media attempts to portray our troops as disportionately "suicidal" as a result of their service are completely disingenuous.
Thanks,
Jackson
FYI - suicides of military personal is at an all time high with no end in sight-even higher (per capita) than all other wars.
Another Bush success.
Suerte.
StoweThere is an end in sight because we're winning in Iraq, and thus it certainly does qualify as "another Bush success".
No, probably not a coincidence. If you were to read what Osama bin Laden said before 9/11, or watched some of his early videos, you'd find that he more than achieved his goal with the 9/11 attacks. The idea was to provoke the U. S. Into doing exactly what we did: to over react.
And over react we did. Big time.Actually, we did not "over react". The over reaction that Al Qaeda expected was for the USA to launch an all out war against Islam, including (they hoped) nuclear attacks against major Muslim countries, thus giving them the "Holy War" they seek.
Instead, we took our time, made our plans, and ultimately we applied our military force against the terrorist's organizations. Thus we have frustrated their goals and are instead pursuing our goals with surgical precision.
Thanks,
Jackson
Daddy Rulz
09-07-08, 14:46
At least these personal sacrifices were made in a campaign that produced results, specifically: A despot removed from office, the liberation of 36 million formerly oppressed people, Al Qaeda beaten to a pulp, and the creation of a new democratic country to counter-balance Iran.
Thanks,
JacksonJax Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq until we went there, get it, we put them there. Instead of "beaten to a pulp" try "had all of their recruitment wet dreams come true." Bin Laden was jerking off in some cave in Afghanistan while he was watching the tanks roll in. Here's an idea, move troops away from were he is to support an invasion of a country were he isn't.
In one post you justify the deaths of 1000's upon 1000's of INNOCENT Iraqi citizens because "the fight is there and not here so we are safer." Yet in this one you justify the invasion because we liberated them. You can't callously justify their slaughter one day, then claim moral high ground the next. Who is responsible for more Iraqi citizens dying Saddam or this administration? Who will liberate them from us?
One more thing regarding this liberation thingy. Saddam was into retail oppression with the exception of the Kurds. The House of Saud is into oppression wholesale, why did we invade Iraq and not the Kingdom. Plus that pesky little fact they never mention on Fox News, 19 of the 20 on 9-11 were Saudis, Bin Laden, Saudi, and the Secret Service guards their embassy.
The very minute we pull the troops from Iraq there will be another Despot in power. My wager is this, Steaks at La Estancia, all entradads, drinks, chica drinks, taxis, plus the duo of my choice for a TLN. Do I have action?
I'm done with this, there is no reasoning on this issue, all of our minds are closed, myself included. Back to pussy.
Jax Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq until we went there, get it, we put them there. Instead of "beaten to a pulp" try "had all of their recruitment wet dreams come true." Bin Laden was jerking off in some cave in Afghanistan while he was watching the tanks roll in. Here's an idea, move troops away from were he is to support an invasion of a country were he isn't.I've already explained this several times, but here it is again:
George Bush knew that for our own defense we needed to take the fight to Al Queda by invading a country directly in the middle of their hornet's nest, effectively sticking a finger right up their ass.
Of course, you can't acknowledge that your strategy was to use another country as a battleground in your own war, so you disguise it as a liberation. The net effect is that you create a magnet for the rabid dogs, luring them into fighting our army on foreign soil, thus keeping them occupied and deflecting their attention from attacking our homeland.
Bush knew that the invasion that was needed to cover the real strategy would prove to be politically unpopular, but he did it because it need to be done. Of course, there's nothing to be ashamed about having liberated 36 million people from the subjugation of a homicidal maniac, and for having brought democracy to a country and a region, but it will take 10 to 20 years before people understand that it was the correct thing to do.
Thanks,
Jackson
Instead of "beaten to a pulp" try "had all of their recruitment wet dreams come true."Rack'em up!
Gato Hunter
09-07-08, 16:08
I wish fox news and the like would show images like this once in a while.
Jackson, you really don't have a clue what war is like other than what you are "told" from the media. The smells, the screams, your buddy getting his head shot off in front of you, you shoot up a convoy only to find out you shot some kids etc.
If you think that this does not affect our soldiers, sailors and Marines mentally, well I need some of what your smoking.
You should try it some time, I did. I will never be the same either.
These are not my pics, mine were all confiscated by the US State Dept in Gulf War pt one. Before digital cameras.
StrayLight
09-07-08, 16:25
George Bush knew that for our own defense we needed to take the fight to Al Queda by invading a country directly in the middle of their hornet's nest, effectively sticking a finger right up their ass.
Of course, you can't acknowledge that your strategy was to use another country as a battleground in your own war, so you disguise it as a liberation. The net effect is that you create a magnet for the rabid dogs, luring them into fighting our army on foreign soil, thus keeping them occupied and deflecting their attention from attacking our homeland.Jackson,
Of the silly statements I've heard concerning our ill-conceived and poorly executed invasion of Iraq, this ranks up there near the top, and may eventually win out in the end.
Let's just forget for a minute that we had already taken the fight to another country: Afghanistan. Let's just forget that for a minute.
There is absolutely nothing in the history of the Iraq war that indicates the Bush administration even imagined we'd be fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq, and every indication that they spent three years in denial once it started happening.
This goes from announcing that major combat was over in May, 2003...
...to sending the operational planning staff for OIF home and turning the war over to an unprepared tactical planning staff shortly after the fall of Baghdad...
...to Bush asking if the CIA station chief was some kind of defeatist when he sent cables warning of the growing insurgency in 2004...
...to allowing the situation to deteriorate through late-2006 under the then-strategy of preparing the Iraqis to take up their own defense.
And so on.
If the idea was to fight Al Qaeda in Iraq, why were we so woefully unprepared? Why did we do such a piss-poor job for three years?
The reason is because the Bush administration was clueless as to what it was getting itself in there, and that the consensus among the war planners was that this entire thing was going to be an easy day, walk-in-the-park affair in which we'd be in and out in fairly short order.
Get a grip, man, and do some reading. The invasion of Iraq had its roots in the Project for the New American Century and the lunatic ideas of Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan. It had its roots in Paul Wolfowitz's years as U. S. Ambassador to Indonesia, and the mistaken lessons he took from People Power Revolution in the Phillipines during his tenure. And it had its roots in Thomas Barnett's theory of Core nations and Gap nations, and a need to pull the Gap nations into the Core.
The last thing on anyone's mind when we invaded Iraq was that we'd be battling Al Qaeda operatives there for years to come. (OK, maybe not the very last thing, but the bottom of the list was visible from there. LOL!)
StrayLight
09-07-08, 16:31
Actually, we did not "over react". The over reaction that Al Qaeda expected was for the USA to launch an all out war against Islam, including (they hoped) nuclear attacks against major Muslim countries, thus giving them the "Holy War" they seek.
Instead, we took our time, made our plans, and ultimately we applied our military force against the terrorist's organizations. Thus we have frustrated their goals and are instead pursuing our goals with surgical precision.
Thanks,
JacksonLOL! OK man, if you consider what we've been doing for the past five and a half years to be "surgically precise," just do me a favor and ignore me if you ever hear me asking anyone for doctor recommendations. LOL!
Prediction: the coming week will show the most hysterical, aggressive attacks yet against Governor Palin. Expect stories about how she and her husband attend swinger clubs, etc..... (Did you know she voted for George W. Bush? The horror!)
The wheels are now officially off the Socialist Party (er, Democratic Party) bandwagon. Expect Full Panic Mode to engage right now. Time to Attack, Attack, Attack! The Messiah Must Prevail!
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1548
Hey Punter. I don't think you would find many of the left leaning mongers advocating a hands off approach with Al Qaeda. Certainly not me. My beef, and I think the beef of many, has been with the monumentally flawed strategy employed by the Bush administration. Lest we forget, there were NO Al Qaeda in Iraq prior to our invasion, and there was an historical enmity between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
Remember, the Bush administration's reasons have changed considerably since they initially floated the WMD rationale, and there is much compelling evidence that alot of the WMD "evidence" was contrived.Dogg, Stray, Stowe,
Please review the following articles; they are quoting your deity - President Clinton, by a source you will probably accept - CNN.
Please provide your comments on how the Clinton rhetoric and rationale is different from Bush's - other than putting "boots on the ground" and attempting to nation build (although Sec of DOD Cohen did say that the strikes on Sudan and Afghanistan were to defend our ideals of democracy)
http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/africa/9808/24/bomb.damage/
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04EFD9173CF936A1575BC0A96E958260&scp=2&sq=iraq+sudan&st=nyt
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp
http://www.washtimes.com/news/2004/jun/24/20040624-112921-3401r/
Stray: Possibly your branch enjoyed some of the Clinton "info blackout",
"The Pentagon's tight hold on information contrasts with previous cruise missile strikes. Sources say that at least two members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff office did not learn of the attacks until President Clinton announced them Thursday afternoon."
By the way, I thank you for your service to the United States. Whether you agree with or believe in the policies of your Commander in Chief, that is your right - I defend that right.
Gato Hunter: I'm sorry I was was not overly moved by your photos - But I am quite moved and motivated by this one. Also of the video of Paul Johnson Jr. And Nick Berg. Do you know who Paul Johnson and Nick Berg were?
Dogg, Stray, Stowe,
Please review the following articles; they are quoting your deity - President Clinton, by a source you will probably accept - CNN.
Please provide your comments on how the Clinton rhetoric and rationale is different from Bush's - other than putting "boots on the ground" and attempting to nation build (although Sec of DOD Cohen did say that the strikes on Sudan and Afghanistan were to defend our ideals of democracy)
http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/africa/9808/24/bomb.damage/
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04EFD9173CF936A1575BC0A96E958260&scp=2&sq=iraq+sudan&st=nyt
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp
http://www.washtimes.com/news/2004/jun/24/20040624-112921-3401r/
Stray: Possibly your branch enjoyed some of the Clinton "info blackout",
"The Pentagon's tight hold on information contrasts with previous cruise missile strikes. Sources say that at least two members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff office did not learn of the attacks until President Clinton announced them Thursday afternoon."
By the way, I thank you for your service to the United States. Whether you agree with or believe in the policies of your Commander in Chief, that is your right - I defend that right.
Gato Hunter: I'm sorry I was was not overly moved by your photos - But I am quite moved and motivated by this one. Also of the video of Paul Johnson Jr. And Nick Berg. Do you know who Paul Johnson and Nick Berg were?
There was no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the war. The stuff you quoted was old, nothing was ever found linking Al Qaeda to Iraq. They did find one guy from the PLO who was retired and living in Baghdad, and another guy who was in the Kurdish area in the north, (which saddam had no control over) to try to make a link. There was no link.
Before the war, “Vice President Cheney and his most senior aide made multiple trips to the CIA over the past year to question analysts studying Iraq's weapons programs and alleged links to al Qaeda, creating an environment in which some analysts felt they were being pressured to make their assessments fit with the Bush administration's policy objectives, according to senior intelligence officials.”http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A15019-2003Jun4?language=printer
“The report released by the Joint Forces Command five years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq said it found no "smoking gun" after reviewing about 600,000 Iraqi documents captured in the invasion and looking at interviews of key Iraqi leadership held by the United States, Pentagon officials said.”http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/13/alqaeda.saddam/
The Baath party, which Saddam Hussein was the leader, was a secular socialist party. They where hated by Al Qaeda. They did not promote religion. Within the government there where Christians, Sunni and Shia. For example Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz was Christian.
“For example, of the eight top Iraqi leaders who in early 1988 sat with Husayn on the Revolutionary Command Council--Iraq's highest governing body-- three were Arab Shias (of whom one had served as Minister of Interior), three were Arab Sunnis, one was an Arab Christian, and one a Kurd. On the Regional Command Council--the ruling body of the party--Shias actually predominated. During the war, a number of highly competent Shia officers have been promoted to corps commanders. The general who turned back the initial Iranian invasions of Iraq in 1982 was a Shia.”From http://countrystudies.us/iraq/38.htm
The Baath Party was Secular, and was fearful of religious extremist.
StrayLight
09-08-08, 00:17
Dogg, Stray, Stowe,
Please review the following articles; they are quoting your deity - President Clinton, by a source you will probably accept - CNN.Alan,
This is the second time in a row you've shot your mouth off about things of which you know nothing, to wit, my opinion of Clinton or CNN.
So I'm going to let it go now. You belong, in my view, to a select group of persons who are guilty of "fractal wrongness," and as Keunwoo Lee notes in the attached link, when you run across a fractally wrong person on the Internet, the best bet is to simply save yourself some time and let that person rattle on into the void.
Fractal wrongness:
http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/klee/misc/lexicon.html
Ciao,
SL
At least these personal sacrifices were made in a campaign that produced results, specifically: A despot removed from office, the liberation of 36 million formerly oppressed people, Al Qaeda beaten to a pulp, and the creation of a new democratic country to counter-balance Iran.
Thanks,
JacksonIf the reason we invaded was to remove a despot why are we not invading about 20 other countries (most in Africa) That is just a BS excuse after-the-fact. Again, removing a despot was NOT one of Bush's first lies to the US public. Only after he was caught lying about all his other reasons did he fall back on that one.
Dogg, Stray, Stowe,
Please review the following articles; they are quoting your deity - President Clinton, by a source you will probably accept - CNN.
Please provide your comments on how the Clinton rhetoric and rationale is different from Bush's - other than putting "boots on the ground" and attempting to nation build (although Sec of DOD Cohen did say that the strikes on Sudan and Afghanistan were to defend our ideals of democracy)
http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/africa/9808/24/bomb.damage/
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04EFD9173CF936A1575BC0A96E958260&scp=2&sq=iraq+sudan&st=nyt
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp
http://www.washtimes.com/news/2004/jun/24/20040624-112921-3401r/
Stray: Possibly your branch enjoyed some of the Clinton "info blackout",
"The Pentagon's tight hold on information contrasts with previous cruise missile strikes. Sources say that at least two members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff office did not learn of the attacks until President Clinton announced them Thursday afternoon."
By the way, I thank you for your service to the United States. Whether you agree with or believe in the policies of your Commander in Chief, that is your right - I defend that right.
Gato Hunter: I'm sorry I was was not overly moved by your photos - But I am quite moved and motivated by this one. Also of the video of Paul Johnson Jr. And Nick Berg. Do you know who Paul Johnson and Nick Berg were?Unlike almost every Republican on this forum who have NEVER once said a negative thing about any of their candidates, I, and other Dems here, have criticized our supposed leaders.
You, and others, keep bringing Clinton as someone we said was perfect in office and never had terrorist activities on their watch. Clinton has not been a part of this discussion but you conservatives bring it up to obfuscate the discussion-to redirect so you can hide behind it.
Alan, find me JUST ONE post of mine where I have posted ANYTHING about Clinton being perfect while in office. You won't and you won't even try because truth and facts are to avoided.
Having said that, Clinton is a hell of a lot better than Bush. Clinton didn't nearly destroy our economy, our constitution (oh that's right-it's ok if the constitution is pissed on as long as it is a Republican doing it)
No President is perfect but none have been totally incompetent, until now.
There is an end in sight because we're winning in Iraq, and thus it certainly does qualify as "another Bush success".It is way too early to call this a success. Wait until 6 months to a year after we leave and watch the entire country be in civil war. That will happen unless we stay there forever (like McCain wants) If that happens then his invasion to help and liberate (your claim) will be a complete joke.
I fear you are delusional, however, enlighten all of us as to Bush's successes. Other than invading a country that did not have Al Queda in it is a success in your mind. I guess you think ruining the economy, increasing the national debt faster than any President in history and all the others on Dickhead's list, as well as my additions are successes since everything and anything done by a Republican MUST be right and / or perfect.
I notice you avoided responding to my questioning your statement about the suicide rate for military being less than the general public. Show me your stats (I can certainly give you the sites where I found my data)
I suspect you did not have any stats when you posted that--you just made it up. Making things up to substantiate what you already believe rather than form your believe around the truth and / or facts. How convenient. What a narrow world you live in.
Suerte.
Stowe
Dogg, Stray, Stowe,
By the way, I thank you for your service to the United States. Whether you agree with or believe in the policies of your Commander in Chief, that is your right - I defend that right.What a hypocrite. In an earlier post you questioned any and all liberals as being unpatriotic-that none of us could possibly have served our country or have family who have done so.
So to now say you defend our right to question our government when you accused us of being unpatriotic. In reality you DID NOT defend our right you attacked us. If you really believed the crap you just posted about defending our right you would not have posted the prior one questioning our patriotism.
Truman, JFK, LBJ, and Carter. But I agree, Bush is the worst!Not sure if you are being sarcastic but, in my opinion neither LBJ nor Carter was even good presidents. While I respect Carter for much of what he has done since, I think he has a basic belief that there is not such thing evil and that he could negotiate with anyone-that all people are reasonable. His was a simplistic POV. He had too much humanitarianism in him to be President.
Sometimes you have to be tough.
Suerte.
Stowe
Daddy Rulz
09-08-08, 01:35
Military, the military, industrial, oil complexes, international corporations, and the religious right.Bush didn't serve the religious right he used them for votes. My mom and dad are two of them. Don't believe me, believe this guy.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15228489/
Bush didn't serve the religious right he used them for votes. My mom and dad are two of them. Don't believe me, believe this guy.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15228489/Hey wait a minute,.
Anything that comes from the media that disparages Republicans is nothing but a lie - is nothing but left wing propaganda and can NEVER be believed. If a media source identifies something bad about Republicans it is, always has been and always will be a fabrication. there has never been a single true thing printed about Republicans at any of these news organizations.
The only media that is NOT lying and is NOT a left wing propaganda tool are those that say only good things about Republicans. Having said that, the only media that is truly unbiased and objective is Fox news and all papers owned by News Corp. All others are communist propaganda.
Haven't we all learned that by now?
Suerte.
Stowe
Other than invading a country that did not have Al Queda in it is a success in your mind.Okay, here it is again for those of you who missed it the first two times:
George Bush knew that for our own defense we needed to take the fight to Al Queda by invading a country directly in the middle of their hornet's nest, effectively sticking a finger right up their ass.
Of course, you can't acknowledge that your strategy was to use another country as a battleground in your own war, so you disguise it as a liberation. The net effect is that you create a magnet for the rabid dogs, luring them into fighting our army on foreign soil, thus keeping them occupied and deflecting their attention from attacking our homeland.
I guess you think ruining the economyWhat ruined economy are you talking about? Jesus, our economy eases up on the gas pedal for a few quarters and you guys are all screaming like Chicken Little.
Increasing the national debt faster than any President in history.We're in a war, duh.
I notice you avoided responding to my questioning your statement about the suicide rate for military being less than the general public. Show me your stats (I can certainly give you the sites where I found my data)
I suspect you did not have any stats when you posted that--you just made it up. Making things up to substantiate what you already believe rather than form your believe around the truth and / or facts. How convenient.http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2008-05/2008-05-29-voa64.cfm?CFID=36533324&CFTOKEN=59266683[/quote]
[url]http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/terrorism/a/arsuicide.htm
What a narrow world you live in.Ditto.
Why in the running fuck does the US need an "official language" and why should it be English? Might as well make it Esperanto. And don't say it's because the English got there first because they didn't. What the US needs is not an official language but compulsory study of a second language starting in kindergarten. I fail to see where being monolingual is advantageous economically, politically, socially, or intellectually.
Why in the running fuck does the US need an "official language" and why should it be English? Might as well make it Esperanto. And don't say it's because the English got there first because they didn't. What the US needs is not an official language but compulsory study of a second language starting in kindergarten. I fail to see where being monolingual is advantageous economically, politically, socially, or intellectually.The legislators pushing this english as the official language joke are just hunting for votes. Propping themselves up with their panicked constituencies. More craven behavior.
Have you noticed that there has been a substantial increase in USA drone missile attacks in the Pakistan / Afghanistan tribal areas recently? Even a ground troop incursion a few days ago. Now you don't think the Bushies after all their muddling around in the Bin Laden search have decided to step things up to help out McCain do you? Nah, couldn't be!;)
If the reason we invaded was to remove a despot why are we not invading about 20 other countries (most in Africa)Woah there, big guy. We'll get to them in due time. For right now, let's keep our eye on the ball and finish the job in Iraq.
Thanks,
Jackson
Hi,
Why? Because it fits the facts AND deflates your incessant arguments about "there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq...", so thereore it can't be true?
Thanks,
Jackson.
Jackson,
Of the silly statements I've heard concerning our ill-conceived and poorly executed invasion of Iraq, this ranks up there near the top, and may eventually win out in the end.
Let's just forget for a minute that we had already taken the fight to another country: Afghanistan. Let's just forget that for a minute.
There is absolutely nothing in the history of the Iraq war that indicates the Bush administration even imagined we'd be fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq, and every indication that they spent three years in denial once it started happening.
This goes from announcing that major combat was over in May, 2003.
. To sending the operational planning staff for OIF home and turning the war over to an unprepared tactical planning staff shortly after the fall of Baghdad.
. To Bush asking if the CIA station chief was some kind of defeatist when he sent cables warning of the growing insurgency in 2004.
. To allowing the situation to deteriorate through late-2006 under the then-strategy of preparing the Iraqis to take up their own defense.
And so on.
If the idea was to fight Al Qaeda in Iraq, why were we so woefully unprepared? Why did we do such a piss-poor job for three years?
The reason is because the Bush administration was clueless as to what it was getting itself in there, and that the consensus among the war planners was that this entire thing was going to be an easy day, walk-in-the-park affair in which we'd be in and out in fairly short order.
Get a grip, man, and do some reading. The invasion of Iraq had its roots in the Project for the New American Century and the lunatic ideas of Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan. It had its roots in Paul Wolfowitz's years as U. S. Ambassador to Indonesia, and the mistaken lessons he took from People Power Revolution in the Phillipines during his tenure. And it had its roots in Thomas Barnett's theory of Core nations and Gap nations, and a need to pull the Gap nations into the Core.
The last thing on anyone's mind when we invaded Iraq was that we'd be battling Al Qaeda operatives there for years to come. (OK, maybe not the very last thing, but the bottom of the list was visible from there. LOL!
Yeah, the US should be in charge of removing all despots and anyone else it doesn't like, regardless of whether they were freely and democratically elected or not. Look how great it worked with Salvador Allende and Jacobo Arbenz. In fact it would be a lot better if all the other countries in the world just let us decide who should be elected. That'd eliminate communism, socialism, fascism, and so forth. Only elitism would remain, the way God planned it. Plus the Monroe Doctrine clearly gives us the right to do whatever the fuck we want, wherever the fuck we want. Where is Fulgencio Batista when we need him?
You know the difference between this site and the local Argentine Mongering sites. The "Argies" talk about fucking, pricing and their experience's with the Chica's, all usefull information.
WE DON'T.
And yes I'm also guilty of the above.
Exon
The simple solution would be for the USA to develop a comprehensive plan to become energy self sufficient. The results would include toppling many of the worst despots in the world. A side effect may be a huge reduction of funding of terrorist organizations.Well, I don't know how simple that would be but I certainly agree that is what should be done.
Sid and I agree!
Bin Laden, who views the rigid Saudi theocracy as insufficiently Islamic, has long considered Saddam Hussein an infidel enemy. Before Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, Bin Laden warned publicly that the Iraqi dictator had designs on conquering Saudi Arabia. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, Bin Laden offered to assemble his mujahedeen to battle Hussein and protect the Arabian peninsula.
Last summer, when CNN acquired a cache of internal Al Qaeda training videotapes, they discovered a Qaeda documentary that was highly critical of Hussein. Peter Bergen, the CNN terrorism expert who interviewed Bin Laden in 1998, noted that Bin Laden indicted Hussein, as "a bad Muslim."
That theme continues in the latest "Bin Laden" audiotape, released to Al Jazeera. In it, Bin Laden (or someone claiming to be him) urges Muslims to fight the American "crusaders" bent on invading Iraq. But even while urging assistance to Hussein's "socialist" regime, "Bin Laden" can't resist condemning that regime: "The jurisdiction of the socialists and those rulers has fallen a long time ago. Socialists are infidels wherever they are, whether they are in Baghdad or Aden."http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3017
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2751019.stm
The Baath party, which Saddam Hussein was the leader, was a secular socialist party. They where hated by Al Qaeda. They did not promote religion. Within the government there where Christians, Sunni and Shia. For example Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz was Christian.
“For example, of the eight top Iraqi leaders who in early 1988 sat with Husayn on the Revolutionary Command Council--Iraq's highest governing body-- three were Arab Shias (of whom one had served as Minister of Interior), three were Arab Sunnis, one was an Arab Christian, and one a Kurd. On the Regional Command Council--the ruling body of the party--Shias actually predominated. During the war, a number of highly competent Shia officers have been promoted to corps commanders. The general who turned back the initial Iranian invasions of Iraq in 1982 was a Shia.”
From http://countrystudies.us/iraq/38.htm
The Baath Party was Secular, and was fearful of religious extremist.
Even The Joint Forces Command could not find a link, after a big investigation.
The report released by the Joint Forces Command five years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq said it found no "smoking gun" after reviewing about 600,000 Iraqi documents captured in the invasion and looking at interviews of key Iraqi leadership held by the United States, Pentagon officials said.
The assessment of the al Qaeda connection and the insistence that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction were two primary elements in the Bush administration's arguments in favor of going to war with Iraq.
The Pentagon's report also contradicts then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who said in September 2002 that the CIA provided "bulletproof" evidence demonstrating "that there are, in fact, al Qaeda in Iraq."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/13/alqaeda.saddam/
Bush on youtube admits no link with 9-11
BUSH: The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.
QUESTION: What did Iraq have to do with it?
BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?
QUESTION: The attack on the World Trade Center.
BUSH: Nothing. Except it’s part of — and nobody has suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a — Iraq — the lesson of September 11th is take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody’s ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdlEcFfYZ2k
I don't understand why people keep say that Iraq was involved with the September 11 attack, or with Al Qaeda. Saddam distrusted religious extremist, and even when he was captured, he had with him order to his people, to work with the mujahedeen, but not to trust them. So when he was on the run, and needed help, he still feared the religious extremist.
Hi,
Why? Because it fits the facts AND deflates your incessant arguments about "there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq.", so thereore it can't be true?
Thanks,
Jackson.And which facts would that be? Other than the conversation you had with your mirror about Bush's "secret plan" to draw in all the bad guys like a late night B movie Western I haven't noticed any "facts", just your own words which on this subject have become pretty laughable I'm sorry to say.
The simple solution would be for the USA to develop a comprehensive plan to become energy self sufficient. The results would include toppling many of the worst despots in the world. A side effect may be a huge reduction of funding of terrorist organizations.Per DH I don't know how simple it would be either but pursuing it with determination would scramble the world order and could lead life as we know it out of the prospect of an extinction. Just like Reagan's inability to recognize AIDS and put US resources in play to find an early solution some Republicans and their ilk today seem hellbent on denying the reality of the ultimate exhaustion of oil carbon based fuel and the increasingly obvious effects it's continued use have. The why escapes me and why it has to be tied to defeating terrorists or re-arranging the world order also. You discover renewable, no polluting energy sources and systems you win and the door to life on planet earth stays open. Maybe Republicans have ze secret death wish, 'take me now o' lord, give me an enemy that is oh so big my lord that I might have a reason to control the world.
Why in the running fuck does the US need an "official language" and why should it be English? Might as well make it Esperanto. And don't say it's because the English got there first because they didn't. What the US needs is not an official language but compulsory study of a second language starting in kindergarten. I fail to see where being monolingual is advantageous economically, politically, socially, or intellectually.Because countries without a dominant culture and language usually end up fragmented with violent separatist movements and/or civil wars. That's what happens when you no longer have one country surrounded by one border.
Second and third languages are great as long as we all know which one's first.
Punter 127
09-09-08, 06:34
You decide,
“So when a young leader came along, every Cuban was at least receptive.
When the young leader spoke eloquently and passionately and denounced the old system, the press fell in love with him. They never questioned who his friends were or what he really believed in.
When he said he would help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and education to all, everyone followed.
When he said he would bring justice and equality to all, everyone said 'Praise the Lord.'
And when the young leader said, 'I will be for change and I'll bring you change,' everyone yelled, 'Viva Fidel!' But nobody asked about the change, so by the time the executioner's guns went silent the people's guns had been taken away.
By the time everyone was equal, they were equally poor, hungry, and oppressed.
By the time everyone received their free education it was worth nothing. By the time the press noticed, it was too late, because they were now working for him.
By the time the change was finally implemented Cuba had been knocked down a couple of notches to Third-World status.
By the time the change was over more than a million people had taken to boats, rafts, and inner tubes. You can call those who made it ashore anywhere else in the world the MOST fortunate Cubans.
Luckily, we would never fall in America for a young leader who promised change without asking, what change? How will you carry it out? What will it cost America?
Would we...?”
Rock Harders
09-09-08, 07:01
Mongers,
Just more right wing reactionary scare tactics from our in-house Fox News analyst, Punter 127.
Suerte,
Rock Harders
And which facts would that be? Other than the conversation you had with your mirror about Bush's "secret plan" to draw in all the bad guys like a late night be movie Western I haven't noticed any "facts", just your own words which on this subject have become pretty laughable I'm sorry to say.Hi,
The "facts" are that we liberated Iraq, and as a result of our presence there, Al Qaeda was inexorabily drawn into a fight with our military there.
Which of these "facts" do you believe was the result of a "conversation" I had with my "mirror"?
BTW, I don't see anyone else laughing at this.
Thanks,
Jackson
=========================================
"It must be nice being an appeaser. You get to muddle along with your head in the sand while other good people, in the process of keeping the world safe for themselves, will inadvertently keep it safe for you too."
Rock Harders
09-09-08, 16:50
Jackson,
I do not think any reasonable examination of the situation in Iraq would deem the Iraqi people to be either free or united; therefore no liberation ever took place. Free? Meaning freedom of religion? Before long there will be a Shiite theocracy in place, with Iran pulling the strings. You can forget freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom from self-incrimination; in those parts, vigilante justice takes care of the people who want those freedoms. There is no freedom in Iraq.
United? The Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds have been battling it out for over a thousand years; modern day Iraq is not a unified nation-state, but a conglomerate of convenience created post-WWI to ease the administration by the UK; think Raj India, which degenerated into Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh. Someday, the US military will leave Iraq (just like the UK army left Raj India) and the three components will split apart into separate entities.
So in reality, what are the results of the Iraq war? First we have an beefed-up and more confident Iran, who will someday in the near future run Iraq just as Syria ran Lebanon for so many years; we have a bankrupted US Treasury, along with damaged US prestige abroad, and trillions of dollars in pissed-away resources. Not to forget, we have over 4100 dead US servicemen, who died for nothing as part of a grand money making scheme by the neo-cons in power.
Suerte,
Rock Harders
Hi,
BTW, I don't see anyone else laughing at this.I know, some others actually try to reason with you and go into considerable well documented detail explaining why your idea (s) are without merit. I'm just incredulous and not bothered to do much more than make fun. But either way we won't be appeasing your ideas.
I know, some others actually try to reason with you and go into considerable well documented detail explaining why your idea (s) are without merit. I'm just incredulous and not bothered to do much more than make fun. But either way we won't be appeasing your ideas.I laughed, but then I realize it wasn't a joke. It's hard enough to imagine that someone would consider us liberators before the invasion. But now, after all that has happened, it's almost unbelievable that someone could still hold that opinion.
What's the latest on Annie Oakley?
Punter 127
09-10-08, 10:16
What's the latest on Annie Oakley?I don’t know about Annie Oakley but Sarah Palin’s out winning the hearts (and votes) of the American people, and stealing the limelight from “BO”.
What's the latest on Annie Oakley?The pitbull with lipstick is still out there with her dad trying to lie their way into the White House. The press is actually starting to pull the curtain back on the lies and phony claims of stewardship and her unremarkable and pedestrian career in government.
Gato Hunter
09-10-08, 14:43
I don't know about Annie Oakley but Sarah Palin's out winning the hearts (and votes) of the American people, and stealing the limelight from "BO".Just wait until Sarah has to start answering questions from a non vetted reporter. I think some of the shine will rub off.
Wild Walleye
09-10-08, 15:04
I have no interest in converting you or anyone else to my way of thinking (one that is generally based on facts and reality rather than synthetic angst and injustice, fabricated in soft minds by pop media and academia)
I respect your right to say what want. However, I will take issue with some of your most egregious misstatements and point out some inaccuracies and falsehoods.
Innocent states pay the prices when the big bully's like UK in 1947 in India & US in 2008 Iraq leave after looting all the wealth, oil, gold.So too do innocents pay the price under tyrannical dictators (please don't bother responding that Bush is a dictator or any of your other campus-sit-in slogans) However, any rational, objective view will tell you that fewer live under tyranny in Iraq today than in 2002. The facts are that of a population of approximately 29 million, under Saddam, about 28,999,900 lived under constant fear of his rule. You may cling to whatever misconceived notions you have about Iraq today, but I can assure you from first hand knowledge that parts of the country and populace are thriving. It is not to say that the place is perfect but it is better and getting better all the time. To postulate that life under Saddam wasn't so bad is just plain stupid.
The Human Rights Watch (not your everyday Neo-Con source) states, 'Since the overthrow of the Iraqi government in April 2003 by the U. S.-led coalition forces, over 250 mass graves have been located across Iraq. Some are believed to contain the remains of thousands of victims, including entire families.' Many hundreds of thousands of murders are directly attributable to Saddam. For example, in Anfal alone, he was responsible for killing 182,000 people.
As far as looting wealth, oil and gold, you could not be more wrong. This is just plain false. In the history of warfare, the ethos was 'to the victor goes the spoils.' However, since the Marshall Plan, America has done the exact opposite. While as the victor we stand in a position to repay ourselves for the cost of the war, through seizing oil revenues, however we do not. We will not. The fact is that US has not taken any material war booty or ill-gotten gains in Iraq.
You are fretting for your 4100 dead service menYour slight to our armed forces and indifference to the sacrifice that they have made exposes you ignorance of the reality of our world. The contribution to mankind of the US and Allied forces, since 1917, is evidenced in the facts that 1) you posted your comments in English rather than Russian, German or Chinese, 2) you are free to make such statements, and 3) you appear to be free to move about the world mongering and pursuing other forms of happiness.
spare a thought or two for the millions of Iraqis who have been injured, killed, raped by the US servicemen.Please back up your statements with facts. Even if we take the June 2006 Lancet study – which has had much criticism and produced a number far higher than any developed by other non-US Govt sources including Iraq Body Count project, the United Nations, and the Iraqi Ministry of Health—you can't get remotely close to your wildly erroneous claim. The study's estimate for violent deaths occurring in Iraq for the period 2003-2006 isf 601,027 deaths (range of 426,369 to 793,663 using a 95% confidence interval) This credits the Coalition with those deaths due to increased lawlessness, degraded infrastructure, poorer healthcare, etc, in addition to those killed by Coalition actions. Of those deaths, 31% (or 186,318) of those were attributed to the Coalition.
The incidence rate of US abuses is extremely low and in all cases under investigation are limited to individuals and small groups of individuals. There are, as always with large groups of human beings, bad people among them. From the materials I could find, there are fewer than 50 allegations of rape by US servicemen in Iraq for the period 2003-2008 (in a country with 13 million female citizens)
"The Iraqi Government uses rape and sexual assault of women to achieve the following goals: to extract information and forced confessions from detained family members; to intimidate Iraqi oppositionists by sending videotapes showing the rape of female family members; and to blackmail Iraqi men into future cooperation with the regime. Some Iraqi authorities even carry personnel cards identifying their official "activity" as the "violation of women's honor."" (U. S. Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices-2001, March 2002; Iraq Research and Documentation Project, Harvard University)
Each murder, rape, torture and death of innocents and of our service men is a tragedy.
Your glib dismissal of the sacrifices made for your freedom and intentional regurgitation and dissemination of erroneous information reveals your ignorance and dogmatic worship and adherence to a hollow ideology. I am sure there is a steady stream of this drivel coming out of your mouth 24/7, so please don't feel the need to respond just wipe the spooge off your chin.
Just wait until Sarah has to start answering questions from a non vetted reporter. I think some of the shine will rub off.I've been saying that about The Messiah for months.
I know, some others actually try to reason with you and go into considerable well documented detail explaining why your idea (s) are without merit. I'm just incredulous and not bothered to do much more than make fun. But either way we won't be appeasing your ideas.Let's consider your theory from another perspective:
You would have us believe that of all the educated and experienced military minds working in the Pentagon, as well as all the dedicated professionals employed in the CIA, the NSA, etc, that NONE of them had the slightest idea, not the slightest inkling, that by the process of liberating Iraq that the possibility existed that Al Qaeda would subsequently migrate to Iraq and begin fighting our military there?
It's amazing that you think so poorly of our military and our intelligence agencies that you willingly believe that they could not and did not anticipate this phenomenon.
Frankly, accepting your primary counter-argument requires no less than the willing suspension of disbelief.
Thanks,
Jackson
=========================================
"It must be nice being an appeaser. You get to muddle along with your head in the sand while other good people, in the process of keeping the world safe for themselves, will inadvertently keep it safe for you too."
"The facts are that of a population of approximately 29 million, under Saddam, about 28,999,900 lived under constant fear of his rule."
Where is your support for that statement? That is not a fact; it's merely an assertion.
"The admiral said U. S. And NATO forces in Afghanistan blamed militant safe havens in Pakistan for launching bolder, more sophisticated attacks on U. S. And NATO forces in eastern Afghanistan. He also warned that time was running out on the ability of the West to provide Afghanistan with vital nonmilitary assistance for Afghanistan including roads, schools, alternative crops for farmers and the rule of law.
"These are the keys to success in Afghanistan. We cannot kill our way to victory and no armed force anywhere, no matter how good, can deliver these keys alone," Mullen said.
Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in sobering testimony before the U. S. House of Representatives Armed Services Committee" 10 September 2008
WE CANNOT KILL OUR WAY TO VICTORY.
Jackson, I have no theory, the facts such as they are have ground themselves out over the past 6 years on the front pages and inside analysis of major newspapers and well researched books in the US. I'm glad to see you've abandoned any pretense of fact based information and are now freewheeling in pure speculation. I don't join you there and encourage you to willingly suspend your current beliefs long enough to take in new information and amend your thinking. You're currently off the rails on this one and no amount of creative thinking on your part is going to change the bottom line, an ill conceived and badly executed plan based on lies for invading another country that had nothing to do with the high jacked plane attacks that occurred in New York City on September 11th. Everything that happened as a result of the decision to attack Iraq became a "theory" in search a basis to justify the colossal bad judgment of a sitting president that made his decisions on "instinct".
...badly executed plan.I disagree. It was a brilliantly executed plan, as evidenced by the speed and efficiency in which we defeated the 6th largest military in the world.
...based on lies for invading another country that had nothing to do with the high jacked plane attacks that occurred in New York City on September 11th.I agree, there was no connection. So what?
There was also no connection between Hitler's invasion of France and Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, but we nevertheless responded to both threats.
BTW, you avoided my question: Do you believe that prior to the Iraq liberation that no one in the military or the government's intelligence agencies had any inkling of an idea that our presence in Iraq would attract Al Qaeda?
This is my core point, although you seem to want to expand it beyond my original context in order to facilitate your denigration of my theory, which is:
1. That Bush knew in advance that an additional benefit to liberating 36 million Iraqis would be that Al Qaeda would be motivated to deploy in Iraq and attack our military.
2. That this would be a fight in which Al Qaeda would be hopelessly out-numbered and out-classed, and in which they would be essentially be committing suicide.
3. That as a result, Al Qaeda would most certainly be too preoccupied to mount successful attacks on the US mainland.
Thanks,
Jackson
=========================================
"It must be nice being an appeaser. You get to muddle along with your head in the sand while other good people, in the process of keeping the world safe for themselves, will inadvertently keep it safe for you too."
Wild Walleye
09-10-08, 19:52
Dickhead:
"The facts are that of a population of approximately 29 million, under Saddam, about 28,999,900 lived under constant fear of his rule."
Where is your support for that statement? That is not a fact; it's merely an assertion.You are absolutely right, that it is not a fact nor was I trying to pass it off as a fact. Only 100 people out of 29MM didn't live in fear? Of course that isn't right. I made it up as an "illustration of the absurd" in that it was an overwhelming majority of the populace.
We can't go back in time and poll the people (especially those killed by Saddam) as to whether or not they feared him. We can however make some educated guesses. Clearly, the Shi'a and Kurdish populations had pretty good reason to fear him but even those of his own Ba'ath party were not immune to inhumane treatment and death. He was no friend to the Christians either. I do not know about the other smaller religions but suspect that they too didn't benefit from his rule.
According to the CIA World Factbook, Iraq is 97% Muslim (Shi'a 60%-65% , Sunni 32%-37%); 3% are Christian and the remaining 2% is comprised of: Yazdânism, Mandaeism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Shabaks. The Kurds are about 15-20% of the Iraqi population (most Kurds are Sunni Muslims although the original religion was Yazidism and there are some Shi'a Kurds in Iran) Just counting the Shi'a, Kurds and Christians, we come to a range of 78%-88% of the population (or 22.6MM-25.5MM people) with good reason to fear him. That doesn't take into the fact that just because one was Sunni, they were safe from him.
To argue that Saddam did not have terrorist ties before war is again factually inaccurate (check out http://www.husseinandterror.com/) It is also inaccurate to state that Saddam had connections to 911. The only people I have ever heard say such a thing are opposed to the war and state repeatedly that such a notion was part of our reasoning for going into Iraq. It wasn't. It also may come as a surprise to you, but Al-Qeada is not the only terrorist organization out there.
"According to the CIA World Factbook, Iraq is 97% Muslim (Shi'a 60%-65% , Sunni 32%-37%); 3% are Christian and the remaining 2% is comprised of...."
Ummmm: 97% + 3% + 2% = 102%
Of course, the CIA is not really a very good source of "facts" anyway as Salvador Allende's loved ones can attest to. You have both a glaring math error and a popular grammar error ("comprised of") in the same sentence. That detracts from your credibility, of course. And if you weren't trying to pass your earlier statement off as fact, why did you say, "the facts are"?
All that other crap, you're confusing me with someone else since I certainly never said anything like Al-Qaeda was the only terrorist organization out there.
So you just make up as many facts as you like. I don't give a shit; I am outta there!
We need to hunt down and kill all these Zoroastrians before they achieve nuclear capability.
"According to Snopes. Com" = ignore. Sidney, of course, is hoping you won't take the trouble to read the linked article, which clearly states that the Obama campaign has made a copy of Michelle's thesis available to anyone who cares to read it.
Punter 127
09-10-08, 21:20
The pitbull with lipstick is still out there with her dad trying to lie their way into the White House. The press is actually starting to pull the curtain back on the lies and phony claims of stewardship and her unremarkable and pedestrian career in government.Why didn ’t you just go ahead and say “lipstick on a pig ”?
You better hope they come up with something (or make something up) because it looks like the people of the heartland, (you know the “low education and working class mentality ” folks) relate to her more than they do a Chicago elitist windbag, and I know you don ’t like it but they get to vote.
The swing voters of “flyover country ” will be the deciding factor in this election, just like they have been in past elections.
I wonder what would happen if the loser of the presidential election became the vice-president by law. The more I think about this, the more appeal it has. Wouldn't that person then be the second-most qualified person and shouldn't they logically take over if the president dies? Wouldn't that introduce some true bipartisanism and prevent the group-think that plagues the Bush administration(s)? The VP don't do shit anyway so why not at least consider this?
Wild Walleye
09-10-08, 23:00
Sorry for the minor errors, glad you pointed them out. I must admit that I rushed a bit and crossed up info from two sources on the religious composition. I do have some responsibilities in addition to checking out the finer things in Bs As, that eat into my posting time.
So based on my math being off 2% and grammatical mistake (EB White vs. Popular usage - in this forum of all things) you dismiss all the actual points out of hand (like the fact that you buddy Banknote was only off by a factor of 1075% in his piece)
Like I originally said, I am not interested in converting anyone to my POV, just trying to shed a little light on some serious falsehoods.
Why didn 't you just go ahead and say "lipstick on a pig "?
You better hope they come up with something (or make something up) because it looks like the people of the heartland, (you know the "low education and working class mentality " folks) relate to her more than they do a Chicago elitist windbag, and I know you don 't like it but they get to vote.
The swing voters of "flyover country " will be the deciding factor in this election, just like they have been in past elections.Thanks Punter, it didn't occur to me that Sarah Palin might be like "lipstick on a pig". Good one and brave of you to call her out on this.
Actually I think Sarah Palin will be elected as VP when, ready?, Pigs have Wings.
Whether those heartland folks you describe, who I hope do cast their votes because the United States is a representative democracy, decide that -
"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--
Of cabbages--and kings--
And why the sea is boiling hot--
And whether pigs have wings."
I agree, there was no connection. So what?
There was also no connection between Hitler's invasion of France and Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, but we nevertheless responded to both threats.
BTW, you avoided my question: Do you believe that prior to the Iraq liberation that no one in the military or the government's intelligence agencies had any inkling of an idea that our presence in Iraq would attract Al Qaeda?
This is my core point, although you seem to want to expand it beyond my original context in order to facilitate your denigration of my theory, which is:
1. That Bush knew in advance that an additional benefit to liberating 36 million Iraqis would be that Al Qaeda would be motivated to deploy in Iraq and attack our military.Lassie, get help!
Really, if you see Alice in Wonderland down there give our regards.
You can ignore the facts and reality as you please but I'm not going down that rabbit hole with you. There's no rational answer to your question, sorry.
All I got to say is.
Regards,
BM.
Sorry for the minor errors, glad you pointed them out. I must admit that I rushed a bit and crossed up info from two sources on the religious composition. I do have some responsibilities in addition to checking out the finer things in Bs As, that eat into my posting time.
So based on my math being off 2% and grammatical mistake (EB White vs. Popular usage - in this forum of all things) you dismiss all the actual points out of hand (like the fact that you buddy Banknote was only off by a factor of 1075% in his piece)
Like I originally said, I am not interested in converting anyone to my POV, just trying to shed a little light on some serious falsehoods.I don't know Banknote from a plate of piss and I don't know what he was off by 1075% on. I don't care if the Iraqi people were afraid of Sadaam or not. However, I don't think your tendency to invent facts is really going to be effective in shedding any light on anything. And if you want to swallow all the CIA's bullshit unquestioningly, that's fine too.
Oh, and by the way, what's your source for this: "For example, in Anfal alone, he was responsible for killing 182,000 people." I know, you "just made it up as an illustration of the absurd."
CIA = Covert International Assassins!
CIA = Covert International Assassins!I'm glad that we have somebody to do what needs to be done.
Lassie, get help!
Really, if you see Alice in Wonderland down there give our regards.
You can ignore the facts and reality as you please but I'm not going down that rabbit hole with you. There's no rational answer to your question, sorry.A typical liberal response: To avoid the embarrassment of answering the question, you instead suggest that I'm living in a LSD fantasy and that a dog should be dispatched to get me some help.
You can't answer the question because...
1. If you say "Yes, the US Government did anticipate that invading Iraq would attract Al Qaeda to Iraq" then your "Bush is the world's stupidest President" theory is deflated, and...
2. If you say "no, the US government did not anticipate that invading Iraq would attract Al Qaeda to Iraq" then you would look ridiculous by inferring that thousands of military and intelligence professionals could not predict the obvious.
And that's my point: I'm stating that it was obvious to everyone at the time that by our presence in Iraq Al Qaeda would be motivated to deploy in Iraq and attack our military.
You avoided my question: Do you believe that prior to the Iraq liberation that no one in the military or the government's intelligence agencies had any inkling of an idea that our presence in Iraq would attract Al Qaeda?
This is my core point, although you seem to want to expand it beyond my original context in order to facilitate your denigration of my theory, which is:
1. That Bush knew in advance that an additional benefit to liberating 36 million Iraqis would be that Al Qaeda would be motivated to deploy in Iraq and attack our military.
Daddy Rulz
09-11-08, 14:56
I care this much.Bad we have had disagreements in the past but this is the best.
Wild Walleye
09-11-08, 15:48
Ha ha! I was smiling after reading your report. I was really entertained at your anger vented out at me. Anger? Venting? Just giving you my opinion and a few facts. I think your point of view and orientation make you perceive things that aren't really there.
I am lucky I am not standing in front of you, you really seem to dislike me for what I wrote! You would be lucky to be standing here with me; I am a very agreeable person. You have nothing to fear from me. In fact, I am in town, let's have a drink. I'll buy the first round. I clearly stated that I respect your right to say what you want. I don't know you, how could I dislike you, yet. Let's get a drink and I can decide then whether or not I like you.
However, I do not appreciate your blind faith in policies of USA. How do you know anything about my faith (blind or otherwise) or my sentiments regarding all US policies? I made a statement about pre and post war Iraq.
It seems that US is some kind of noble country looking after the entire world or the entire world is living on US economy & resources.It is, many of them are. The world is always changing. When the shit hits the rotary oscillator, friends come out of the wood work and the US usually overlooks the slights that it has endured from those new found friends.
However, I do have strong reasons to believe that Saddam was a emperor of his country & running well. You are entitled to think what you want. Please reread my first response, I think you missed something.
Many people in the world shed tears when he was displaced by on pretext that he is producing chemical weapons (to date none have been found) He was tortured, his whole family killed by USA,I cried when Old Yeller died. Chemical weapons were one of many valid reasons. Chemical weapons were found in Iraq, although not in the quantities expected. That doesn't change the soundness of the decision.
What proof do you have that he was tortured?
Wrong, with the exceptions of Uday and Qusay, the rest of his family left Iraq are in exile in various other nations. Saddam in fact is credited with killing at least as many of his family (Hussein Kamel al-Majidas, Saddam Kamel al-Majid, and Adnan Khairallah Tulfah) as is the coalition forces (Saddam, Uday and Qusay)
this is not the way to treat an Emperor of a country.I quite agree. I believe he was treated too well.
Don't fool your self and your friends here by saying that no wealth is being looted from Iraq. In fact, big size Very large crude oil carriers (VLCCs) are regularly going to oil berths in Iraq and transporting oil to US. How else would you propose the transport the crude, row boats? I imagine the crude is destined for refineries, regardless of which country they happen to be in. The oil is part of the global supply (not a special "US Secret Supply" which would be hard to hide and would definitely bring the price at the pump) Don't kid yourself; the Iraqi government is paid for every drop of oil.
Damn, your country is becoming richer thanks to Iraq war. On the contrary the US has spent billions on the war. Please provide me with some data on actual repayment let alone profit (profit is when you make more money than you spend in delivering a good or service) Why is the American deficit rising (in addition to drunken sailor spending in Washington and a few financial bailouts here and there)
As far as freedom of movement in the world, thanks to US & allied forces. What a laugh! World has become a horrible place to travel! You're right, making the world "more interesting to travel" in your eyes is much more important that the freedom gained through WWI, WWII, the cold war and the Iraq War. My bad.
You probably have a US passport & white skin so you don't know what anguish millions of people are going through while traveling these days with their humble passports and dark skin. Again, you know nothing about me, what I have seen and where I have been. Why should the color of my skin matter? The color of your skin does not matter to me.
But do you or many of the Americans here ever shed a tear for thousands who die every fucking day in Lebanon, Israel, Pakistan, India, Iraq, Afghanistan on name of terrorism? Like I said, the loss of each innocent human life is a tragedy. I believe that to be true no matter where that loss of life occurs, what religion or color the victim is. How are they dying in the name of terrorism? I have many close friends from Lebanon, Egypt and the UAE, but I think of them as I do all my friends, without putting labels (race, religion, nationality) on them as it seems you are want to do.
When a white man dies because of war, the world should come to a stop but dark skin man's life has no apparent value! How many times the world stops when bombs explode in Pakistan / Lebanon & innocent women & children die. Says who? See previous two answers. I would like to point out that I think it would be equally bad for all of us if the world actually stopped.
Now, don't send me another nasty message because this message is not directed at you, Wild wallyeye. However, its just to make you & others aware that don't live in this notion that US is doing Iraq a favor by occupying it or by attacking it in first place or that British did a favor by ruling India for 100 years or that because of US, the rest of the world is surviving and eating two square meals!
My notes aren't nasty unless you think it is nasty to be confronted with the truth. But your message is directed at me and implies that I am a racist. Again, we have differing opinions on Iraq.
I don't recall if I supported the Crown way back then, but I doubt it; my family has been on the receiving end of British rule, on two different continents. However, I hardly blame all Brits for that.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.4 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.